American War Crimes are Happening All Around Us (1 Viewer)

[Thales750]

How long must we defend the corruption in the White House?

 

[AccessBlaster]

How long must we defend the corruption in the White House?

3 years my guess.

 

[Thales750]

3 years my guess.

That's a good response. I'm saddened by it, but it is a reasonable answer.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Perhaps forever, since I see no evidence of saintliness in the opposition party, either.

 

[Thales750]

Perhaps forever, since I see no evidence of saintliness in the opposition party, either.

There is a big gap between killing people on the open seas with American War Ships and being the son of a sitting president, who makes deals with some folks to make $25 million or so.
Especially, if you compare that to the Trump's family making billions off of their crypto-coin shenanigans. Which by the way, directly took money out of the pockets of their supporters. Just like his fictional Legal Fund which collected over $200 million from those same worshiping suckers.

Innumeracy is a real root cause of the conservative contempt for Dems. Furthermore, Donald Trump never stops lying, it is a continuous stream. The Conservative answer, everyone lies. Once again, not even recognizing actual orders of magnitude.

I brought this subject up because what this administration is doing has all the appearance of War Crimes. You and I were both federal employees, I took the oath to the Constitution and managed to get through the process of getting a clearance. We were not legally permitted to even have the "appearance of impropriety".

The folks in the White House have a law-enforceable-duty to do the same.

 

[AccessBlaster]

There is a big gap between killing people on the open seas with American War Ships and being the son of a sitting president, who makes deals with some folks to make $25 million or so.
Especially, if you compare that to the Trump's family making billions off of their crypto-coin shenanigans. Which by the way, directly took money out of the pockets of their supporters. Just like his fictional Legal Fund which collected over $200 million from those same worshiping suckers.

Innumeracy is a real root cause of the conservative contempt for Dems. Furthermore, Donald Trump never stops lying, it is a continuous stream. The Conservative answer, everyone lies. Once again, not even recognizing actual orders of magnitude.

I brought this subject up because what this administration is doing has all the appearance of War Crimes. You and I were both federal employees, I took the oath to the Constitution and managed to get through the process of getting a clearance. We were not legally permitted to even have the "appearance of impropriety".

The folks in the White House have a law-enforceable-duty to do the same.

This list represents only a fraction of the drone strikes President Obama authorized; it does not include “second strikes,” where rescue teams were targeted. The last column is a civilians count.

Let’s not forget that a U.S. drone strike killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S.-born cleric from New Mexico. It also killed Samir Khan, another U.S. citizen. This was the first known instance of the United States killing an American with a drone without a trial.

Year	Approx. Number of Strikes (Pakistan)	Estimated Total Killed	Estimated Civilians Killed
2009	52 strikes (The Bureau Investigates)	465–744 killed (The Bureau Investigates)	100–210 civilians (The Bureau Investigates)
2010	~122 strikes (Council on Foreign Relations)	818 killed (per one source) (Council on Foreign Relations)	smaller proportion civilians (per source) (Council on Foreign Relations)
2011	~75 strikes (The Bureau Investigates)	363–666 killed (The Bureau Investigates)	52–152 civilians killed (The Bureau Investigates)
2012	~50 strikes (The Bureau Investigates)	212–410 killed (The Bureau Investigates)	13–63 civilians killed (The Bureau Investigates)

 

[NauticalGent]

Let’s not forget that a U.S. drone strike killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S.-born cleric from New Mexico. It also killed Samir Khan, another U.S. citizen. This was the first known instance of the United States killing an American with a drone without a trial.

An inconvenient truth...

 

[Thales750]

This list represents only a fraction of the drone strikes President Obama authorized; it does not include “second strikes,” where rescue teams were targeted. The last column is a civilians count.

Let’s not forget that a U.S. drone strike killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S.-born cleric from New Mexico. It also killed Samir Khan, another U.S. citizen. This was the first known instance of the United States killing an American with a drone without a trial.

Year	Approx. Number of Strikes (Pakistan)	Estimated Total Killed	Estimated Civilians Killed
2009	52 strikes (The Bureau Investigates)	465–744 killed (The Bureau Investigates)	100–210 civilians (The Bureau Investigates)
2010	~122 strikes (Council on Foreign Relations)	818 killed (per one source) (Council on Foreign Relations)	smaller proportion civilians (per source) (Council on Foreign Relations)
2011	~75 strikes (The Bureau Investigates)	363–666 killed (The Bureau Investigates)	52–152 civilians killed (The Bureau Investigates)
2012	~50 strikes (The Bureau Investigates)	212–410 killed (The Bureau Investigates)	13–63 civilians killed (The Bureau Investigates)

Do you actually believe that's a viable comparison and if you even do now because of your political beliefs believe that it's viable at the time when the United States was killing known terrorist after we had dealt with the attacks on 9/11 I think it's interesting that you have changed your views so dramatically has to protect and defend Donald Trump. You can tell me I'm wrong about this but you're going to have to have some pretty significant evidence that you weren't waving the red white and blue back when we were killing all those terrorists.

 

[AccessBlaster]

I think it's interesting that you have changed your views so dramatically has to protect and defend Donald Trump.

I think I've been consistent in my objections to DJT. For example, his DOJ picks—Bondi, Kash, and Bongino—are a joke. Hegseth isn’t panning out as I’d hoped. And when it comes to immigration, there should be more emphasis on targeting hardcore criminals of all races and creeds, not just the low-hanging fruit.

Do you actually believe that's a viable comparison and if you even do now because of your political beliefs believe that it's viable at the time when the United States was killing known terrorist after we had dealt with the attacks on 9/11

Viable? It's how we do business. We can go back to the jungles of Vietnam and napalm or Nagasaki and Hiroshima pick your poison.

The point is, it didn't start with DJT.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Technically, by your standards what Obama had done to Osama Bin Laden - execution while in his home on foreign soil, followed by removal of the body, plus execution of a couple of his henchmen during the incursion - would count as a criminal act. But since it was carried out by Democrats, you haven't, to my recollection, complained.

 

[Thales750]

I think I've been consistent in my objections to DJT. For example, his DOJ picks—Bondi, Kash, and Bongino—are a joke. Hegseth isn’t panning out as I’d hoped. And when it comes to immigration, there should be more emphasis on targeting hardcore criminals of all races and creeds, not just the low-hanging fruit.


Viable? It's how we do business. We can go back to the jungles of Vietnam and napalm or Nagasaki and Hiroshima pick your poison.

The point is, it didn't start with DJT.

Except these aren't military or organized terrorist, they're fishermen. And it is a war crime to shoot people in the water. Like actual Nazi war crimes. It was only a matter of time, untill we got here.
As far as atomic weapons in WWII, that also has to be view within the context. Vietnam happened for a lot of complicated reasons not the least of which was the obsession that conservatives had with Communism, and not just conservatives average Americans also had pretty significant anti-communist leanings. And maybe rightly so I think the Communist doctrine in those days was definitely to take over the world and certainly the Soviets were doing everything they could to do that. All these things have to be taken in context but the United States has had a huge infusion of deadly narcotics for the last I don't know 80 90 years whatever it is maybe more like 70 or 60 years but anyway a long time and now all of a sudden they find justification to take American naval assets and destroy random fishing boats or maybe drug boats but that's a new thing either way.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Except these aren't military or organized terrorist, they're fishermen. And it is a war crime to shoot people in the water. Like actual Nazi war crimes. It was only a matter of time, untill we got here.
As far as atomic weapons in WWII, that also has to be view within the context. Vietnam happened for a lot of complicated reasons not the least of which was the obsession that conservatives had with Communism, and not just conservatives average Americans also had pretty significant anti-communist leanings. And maybe rightly so I think the Communist doctrine in those days was definitely to take over the world and certainly the Soviets were doing everything they could to do that. All these things have to be taken in context but the United States has had a huge infusion of deadly narcotics for the last I don't know 80 90 years whatever it is maybe more like 70 or 60 years but anyway a long time and now all of a sudden they find justification to take American naval assets and destroy random fishing boats or maybe drug boats but that's a new thing either way.

That's why he designated them narco terrorists.

 

[moke123]

That's why he designated them narco terrorists.

And legally that does what?

 

[AccessBlaster]

And legally that does what?

It triggers litigation, it wasn't that long ago George Bush was considered a war criminal, now he's besties with the Obama's go figure.

 

[Thales750]

Technically, by your standards what Obama had done to Osama Bin Laden - execution while in his home on foreign soil, followed by removal of the body, plus execution of a couple of his henchmen during the incursion - would count as a criminal act. But since it was carried out by Democrats, you haven't, to my recollection, complained.

I never agreed with the act of killing bin laden. Having said that there was a decade of evidence that had been collected probably millions of pages of evidence proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that bin laden had been responsible for the 9/11 attacks. So saying that my capitulation and that killing was because Democrats did it is not accurate. And you probably knew that before you posted that response. You can always tell when conservative response borders way on the outside of the boundaries when Angel agrees with it.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I can always determine liberal response by the fact that they ignore their own culpability for things that happen when they have the majority. You can say "pot calling the kettle black" but the truth is, it is politicians of all types who learn the art of the deal and tap-dance around the morality. Both the pot AND the kettle are jet-black and I see no hope of them ever lightening up to a shade of gray.

I don't necessarily agree with killing the drivers of the drug boats. I would much prefer to see them coming and set up an intercept once they enter the 12-mile limit. With today's tech, that should be easily possible. Intercept & impound - and later SELL the boats, incarcerate the drivers for possession with intent to distribute (plus unauthorized navigation in national waters), and incinerate or chemically neutralize the contraband once the quality-control analysis is complete. And if the boat drivers refuse to stop at the interdiction point, THEN blow them out of the water. Target practice with full-auto Ma Deuces. Use some other little armament like a small missile, RPG, LARS, or something like that. But wait until they fail to surrender before taking them out completely. Make a measured response. But that's one man's idea.

 

[Thales750]

I can always determine liberal response by the fact that they ignore their own culpability for things that happen when they have the majority. You can say "pot calling the kettle black" but the truth is, it is politicians of all types who learn the art of the deal and tap-dance around the morality. Both the pot AND the kettle are jet-black and I see no hope of them ever lightening up to a shade of gray.

I don't necessarily agree with killing the drivers of the drug boats. I would much prefer to see them coming and set up an intercept once they enter the 12-mile limit. With today's tech, that should be easily possible. Intercept & impound - and later SELL the boats, incarcerate the drivers for possession with intent to distribute (plus unauthorized navigation in national waters), and incinerate or chemically neutralize the contraband once the quality-control analysis is complete. And if the boat drivers refuse to stop at the interdiction point, THEN blow them out of the water. Target practice with full-auto Ma Deuces. Use some other little armament like a small missile, RPG, LARS, or something like that. But wait until they fail to surrender before taking them out completely. Make a measured response. But that's one man's idea.

You know I agree with your second paragraph. The problem with the first paragraph is that once again what the current administration has been doing is maybe just the culmination of the growth of corruption at the very top of our nation and I'm not going to do a lot deny that that is on both sides of the island as a matter of fact I've always said it's on both sides of the aisle. The problem I have with bringing up prior administrations as some kind of rebuttal seems to me to be on the weak side. It's like when we were kids and you know the other kids are doing something bad and then you did something bad and you told your mom well Billy Bob's doing that and Mom smacks you upside the head and says no Billy Bob doing it has nothing to do with you doing it. The thing is this is where we are right now and making the case that it has been done by other administrations is in no way a justification for what's going on currently. And even you have to admit that there has been marked escalation since Trump came into office. We got to fix this we the American people have got to fix this, and we aren't going to fix it by continuously looking back and saying this president was bad and that president was bad and that Congress is bad and that other Congress is bad, we actually have a supreme court now that is lending credibility to this rogue administration. We shouldn't be taking sides, if taking sides means that we're going to continue to kick this can down the road.
It's time to draw the line in the Sand.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The problem I have with bringing up prior administrations as some kind of rebuttal seems to me to be on the weak side.

I don't see it as a rebuttal. I see it as a blanket accusation of that breed of humanity called "politician."

It's time to draw the line in the Sand.

Are you proposing an insurrection? Because during the time when the Dems had Congress, I was almost ready to have an insurrection over the actions of the liberal-minded deep state tinkling away money to people who have no claim on it whatsoever. Call me Scrooge if you wish, because ALL of Washington politics is humbug to me.

 

[AccessBlaster]

You know I agree with your second paragraph. The problem with the first paragraph is that once again what the current administration has been doing is maybe just the culmination of the growth of corruption at the very top of our nation and I'm not going to do a lot deny that that is on both sides of the island as a matter of fact I've always said it's on both sides of the aisle. The problem I have with bringing up prior administrations as some kind of rebuttal seems to me to be on the weak side. It's like when we were kids and you know the other kids are doing something bad and then you did something bad and you told your mom well Billy Bob's doing that and Mom smacks you upside the head and says no Billy Bob doing it has nothing to do with you doing it. The thing is this is where we are right now and making the case that it has been done by other administrations is in no way a justification for what's going on currently. And even you have to admit that there has been marked escalation since Trump came into office. We got to fix this we the American people have got to fix this, and we aren't going to fix it by continuously looking back and saying this president was bad and that president was bad and that Congress is bad and that other Congress is bad, we actually have a supreme court now that is lending credibility to this rogue administration. We shouldn't be taking sides, if taking sides means that we're going to continue to kick this can down the road.
It's time to draw the line in the Sand.

Ignoring the roots of the problem isn’t a strategy. Drawing a line in the sand is fine, but let’s at least draw it based on the full picture, not selective memory.

 

[Thales750]

I don't see it as a rebuttal. I see it as a blanket accusation of that breed of humanity called "politician."



Are you proposing an insurrection? Because during the time when the Dems had Congress, I was almost ready to have an insurrection over the actions of the liberal-minded deep state tinkling away money to people who have no claim on it whatsoever. Call me Scrooge if you wish, because ALL of Washington politics is humbug to me.

No we have lawless in the White House now, that's more enough to go around. The answer is to make laws against Citizen's United.