CIA Has Become “One Hell of a Killing Machine”

[88GT]

Exposing government tyranny = "wants no government at all"?

How exactly do you make this leap of logic?

Simple. I jumped.

 

[steveh_131]

Simple. I jumped.

And failed.

 

[88GT]

I wonder if the founders ever intended for the Federal Government to operate outside the borders of this country.

It contradicts my conscious to think that a document penned to put an end to tyranny would give credence to the same tyranny as long as it was being done upon a people of a different land.

Here's a contradiction: the prohibitions on tyranny placed on the federal government did not similarly limit state or local governing authorities. If in fact the goal was the abolition of all government-sponsored tyranny, why is it that the founders left the states free to trample rights as they saw fit?

 

[Destro]

I'm confused.

ram, is your complaint that it should be the USAF behind the joysticks on the drones (isn't it already)?

What's wrong with the CIA killing enemy combatants? Isn't this what the government should be doing? The OSS did it before the CIA and let us all hope that we kill many of them.



When and where? In Wazirastan? In Iowa? What are you talking about?



I'm not certain what you mean by that, but the Bill of Rights does not apply to nonresident aliens outside the United States of America.

United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

woot Kirk, woot indeed

 

[dross]

Here's a contradiction: the prohibitions on tyranny placed on the federal government did not similarly limit state or local governing authorities. If in fact the goal was the abolition of all government-sponsored tyranny, why is it that the founders left the states free to trample rights as they saw fit?

Prepare yourself for the ground of this argument to shift under your feet.

 

[88GT]

And failed.

No, no. I'm pretty sure I jumped. No failure there.

 

[steveh_131]

No, no. I'm pretty sure I jumped. No failure there.

 

[88GT]

Prepare yourself for the ground of this argument to shift under your feet.

It's not like I think I have an answer for it. I've mulled this conundrum over many-a-times. I still don't have a satisfactory answer to it that preserves the rights of the states over that of the federal government (noted exceptions acknowledged) and jibes with the idea that the founders really were focused on preventing tyranny.

 

[Destro]

SEALS are a bit different. They're more like shock troops than anything else. Not really operating independantly in a clandestine manner. Of the de-classifed operations, they've been used as a force to carry out specific ops originated outside of their ranks.

DELTA would be a better comparison as they often act on behalf of the US Army out of uniform, similar to how the CIA operate. DELTA (once again based on declassified ops) is given free reign to conduct their operations as they see fit within a very vague general description of what is supposed to happen. And also like the CIA, if you're caught, DELTA doesn't exist according to the US government.

this is all kinds of wrong

 

[88GT]

Are you arguing with my conclusion or the fact that I connected pieces together to get there?
Because I can guarantee that I pieced together multiple bits of evidence to come to my conclusion. Whether or not you agree with it is irrelevant. I did, in fact, jump.

Now, if you'd like to discuss the conclusion itself, please, be my guest. It would be an improvement over your latest passive-aggressive attempts.

 

[phylodog]

Anwar Al Awlaki is an American citizen, actively being targeted for termination.

This is the kind of person you want to defend? He's a dual citizen of the US and Yemen and widely recognized as working toward the destruction of the United States. If he's on US soil then yes, he deserves due process. If he's in the middle east (enjoying his Yemeni ccitizenship) and working against us then I have no problem with the CIA flying a drone down his throat.

It was reported in 2010 that dozens of other American citizens are being targeted as well.

Like who? A factory worker in Gary, IN? The owner of a bakery in Bloomington? No, enemies of the state. If they are on US Soil and US citizens they deserve due process. If they are on foreign soil, plotting against the US or shooting at our troops they deserve to die the death they've chosen for themselves. May they enjoy their virgins.

The only thing that is going to bring this country to its knees is its own government. It shouldn't be hard to imagine how that might happen.

And enough with the "If you disagree with me you must hate America" stuff.

I'm open to healthy debate. My statement was not based on this one thread alone but hundreds.

Guess what? The 'go back to sleep' mentality is what is wrong with the country. I love this country too. You can't even bring yourself to admit that there are actual injustices perpetrated by the government. That doesn't sound like the attitude we need to keep this government on the straight and narrow.

I admit to injustices when I see them. What I don't do is constantly search out anything I can construe as further evidence that the United States is the root of all evil on this planet.

If nothing changes in this government, the country will necessarily devolve into ruin. The course America travels on has been unsustainable for a long time. Do you deny that? All these well-intentioned exemptions from the constitution will bite us in the ass.

You are right about that. If we keep catering to criminals and parasites like we have been this country is destined to go into the toilet. What I find to be the biggest problem, by far, is the increasing number of people in this country content to sit in their free homes, eating free food and contributing nothing other than a hand at the voting booth. You really want to scream about injustices? Research the bureaucracies which not only allow this to continue, but reward those who join the team.

America is not perfect but it [STRIKE]can[/STRIKE] MUST learn to be better. Patriotism is not about making excuses for your rulers.

I'm not making excuses for anyone, that would imply that I believe what they are doing is wrong. I don't. I'm behind any government entity who is putting down those who are trying to hurt this country.

The CIA itself is overseas participating in the killing.

CIA to operate drones over Yemen

(Yes America is bombing Yemen too)



That's what the military is for. I think it is a bit troubling when civilian bureaucracies are now being renowned for turning into a "killing machine." They should stick with intelligence, if they stick around at all.

The CIA is another bureaucracy run amok, given a license to kill and showing no obedience to our constitution.


If that is true, then does it follow that the Feds may do the following to non-resident aliens on foreign soil? Ban free speech, ban assembly, ban religion, confiscate weapons, quarter soldiers in homes, detain people indefinitely without due process, torture people...

Rights aren't truly derived from the constitution anyways, correct? Neither are they derived from which patch of dirt you were born on.



DHS Deploying Predator Drones over Canadian Border

Aerial drones to begin circling American cities

...

 

[steveh_131]

Are you arguing with my conclusion or the fact that I connected pieces together to get there?
Because I can guarantee that I pieced together multiple bits of evidence to come to my conclusion. Whether or not you agree with it is irrelevant. I did, in fact, jump.

Now, if you'd like to discuss the conclusion itself, please, be my guest. It would be an improvement over your latest passive-aggressive attempts.

I'd be glad to hear the evidence that you pieced together to prove that he is an anarchist.

 

[88GT]

I'd be glad to hear the evidence that you pieced together to prove that he is an anarchist.

For starters: he will condemn a government for actions it has the authority, and in some cases, a mandate to perform.

Now, does this mean you disagree with my conclusion?

 

[steveh_131]

For starters: he will condemn a government for actions it has the authority, and in some cases, a mandate to perform.

Now, does this mean you disagree with my conclusion?

Oh I definitely disagree with your conclusion.

Condemning the actions of a government does not equate to anarchy.

Condemning the manner in which it performs the things that it has a mandate to perform also does not equate to anarchy.

 

[rambone]

However, I'd add one more detail: they don't think anything a GOVERNMENT does is legitimate. Rambone's posted quite a few articles highlighting state government tyranny (and it is tyranny) of late which makes me think he wants no government at all.

What in the world?

I want laws to be local, and the Federal Government should be smaller and less influential. With that said, when a state government oppresses its people, it still deserves to be called out and everyone should learn a lesson from its mistake. I have a feeling you are referring to the California land-grab thread. We all should learn the consequence of sacrificing property rights to the code nazis.

For starters: he will condemn a government for actions it has the authority, and in some cases, a mandate to perform.

Now, does this mean you disagree with my conclusion?

I disagree with your conclusion. A "mandate" for injustice still should be criticized.

Indiana has public education listed in its constitution as a "right." I believe this is :

(a) Acceptable under the U.S. Constitution.
(b) Within the state's power to attempt.

yet I also believe that public education is:

(c) Economically unfair.
(d) An inferior and ineffectual form of education.
(e) Ripe for abuse & waste.
(f) Part of the Communist Manifesto.
along with 100's of more reasons why I don't like it.


So just because the state has the authority (or mandate) to do something, doesn't mean it is automatically fair, just, or a good thing.

/threadjack


I should just dedicate a whole thread to explaining why I'm not an anarchist. Then when threads inevitably get personal we could just swing over there and duke it out. For now I would like to talk about the CIA...

 

[halfmileharry]

I certainly don't view our federal government as having that much credibility anymore. Also, I don't have a problem with blowing the **** out of our enemies, but the CIA is involved in influencing foreign politics through threats and violence. Those politics usually have nothing to do with our national security. I'm all for legitimate wars. I'm against wars that are for money or power.

What other kinds of wars are there?
It was the Twin Towers World Trade Center? Financial Headquarters for numerous companies and countries?
I think the religeous war card was overplayed due to "fleecing the sheep" by OBL on that day. He just plain chumped the dummys.
I'm sure the CIA also tries to overthrow and influence other governments by buying support. Much like lobbyists here bribing our representation and greasing the skids of law.
I'm pretty sure it's in our country's security and best interest to buy our way in instead of having to fight more wars. I'm also sure that's determined by our political leadership.

 

[88GT]

Oh I definitely disagree with your conclusion.

Condemning the actions of a government does not equate to anarchy.

Condemning the manner in which it performs the things that it has a mandate to perform also does not equate to anarchy.

So you don't think that condemning legitimate actions of government, repeatedly, is a sign that the position being fronted is one of anti-government leanings? Is there ever a time when Rambone has even grudgingly accepted governmental authority? Legitimate authority granted by the people? Is the Constitution just wrong?

It's not that he brings to light real abuses--or more accurately, ACTS--of government. It's that that's ALL he does. They need not even be real abuses; it's enough that he just disagrees with them for some reason (and that reason is the point of this discussion). Every comment he makes is rooted in anti-government shtick. Discussing foreign policy? He'll have something anti-government to say. Discussing economic issues? He'll have something anti-government to say. Discussing what to have for dinner tonight? He'll have something anti-government to say.

As if that weren't enough, it's never a simple statement of fact or observational dot-connecting. I mean, there are ways to introduce the ills of government tyranny into conversation when it's relevant without sounding like a nutjob. There's a hysteria in his posts. An irrational obsession with government. An unspoken implication that government should be removed from the equation altogether. Not over-stepping government action. Government itself.

I could be wrong. But that is how he presents himself.

 

[Expat]

I could be wrong. But that is how he presents himself.

I am sure he and his sycophants will be along to try to beat you into submission, but I think you have summarized his positions pretty well.

 

[jeremy]

I wonder if the founders ever intended for the Federal Government to operate outside the borders of this country.

It contradicts my conscious to think that a document penned to put an end to tyranny would give credence to the same tyranny as long as it was being done upon a people of a different land.

Really?!

You are aware that the Continental Congress and Several States Governments issued Privateer Licenses...

As a matter of fact the US Government did not initially wish to sign the 1856 Declaration of Paris, which outlawed Privateering.

 

[steveh_131]

Is there ever a time when Rambone has even grudgingly accepted governmental authority? Legitimate authority granted by the people? Is the Constitution just wrong?

INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PAVES ROAD

This is an acceptable government program.

Rambone

Is this the kind of thread you're hoping he'll create more of?