• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lawsuit over American drone strikes dismissed by U.S. judge

Soupnazi630 said:
It is not about geo politics it is about the actions of our government.
Click to expand...

Yeah...that it conducts in pursuit of geopolitical goals...

Which was supposed to be governed by the constitution. I guess geopolitics negate that law for you.
Click to expand...

lol what 'law'?
 
Soupnazi630 said:
Deliberately obtuse?

Clearly the constitution.
Click to expand...

Which "law"? You think operating on a sound geopolitical basis is unconstitutional? Where does it say the US government has to act stupidly?
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Which "law"? You think operating on a sound geopolitical basis is unconstitutional? Where does it say the US government has to act stupidly?
Click to expand...

The constitution is law.

I answered you and it allows nothing like this especially drone bombing US citizens
 
Soupnazi630 said:
Very interesting.

I have thought a lot about this myself. Not necessarily for drone strikes but in general.

According to one account I read some merchant marine corporations requested letters of Marque from the government during WWII and of course were outright denied.

I wonder how much money we would save on the defense budget if we were to start the practice again.

Obviously not every threat could be handled by such private contractors but some could and probably more effeciently than by uncle sam.
Click to expand...

I meant it in the sense of a specific authorization for the use of force and not just a "blanket" endorsement.
 
danielpalos said:
I meant it in the sense of a specific authorization for the use of force and not just a "blanket" endorsement.
Click to expand...

Yes that is what I meant as well.

I would not advocating using them to replace the military but I think the occasional use of such a tool could work well in some circumstances
 
OldWorldOrder said:
So just "constitution"? That's all?
Click to expand...

What do you mean "just the constitution"? The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land by its own mandate. Besides it isn't just the Constitution, there are also several international treaties that the US is a signatory to, as well as the Nuremburg Principles that not only describe war crimes in detail but prohibit it. International treaties become part of the Constitution via the Supremacy clause.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Looks like you do.
Click to expand...
Again a drone bombing someone is conducting warfare.We are not at war with Yemen so we have no business dropping bombs and rockets in a country we are not at war with.


Looks like they do..
Click to expand...
You a full of **** if you honestly think people want a foreign government coming in and bombing innocent civilians.Would you want a another country coming into the USA to bomb civilians and alleged terrorists?


Looks like it is
Click to expand...
lt is not.Conducting warfare in countries we are not war with will only harm us in the future and open us to other countries doing the same to us.
 
RiverDad said:
No grounds for dismissal.

Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was killed at the age of 16 in an American drone strike on October 14, 2011, in Yemen, along with alleged al-Qaeda members two weeks after the death of his father.[251] Nine other people were killed in the same CIA-led attack. Among the dead was a 17-year-old cousin of Abdulrahman.[252] According to U.S. officials the killing of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was a mistake; the actual target was an Egyptian, Ibrahim al-Banna. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was reported to have gone out in the desert to search for his missing father but was sitting in a cafe when he was killed.[253] Human rights groups have raised questions as to why an American citizen was killed by the U.S. in a country with which the United States is not at war. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki had no connection to terrorism.​

Out and out cold-blooded murder of an teenager not accused of any crime. The US might as well have sent an assassin to walk up to the boy and put a bullet through his forehead just because they didn't like the shoes he was wearing.
Click to expand...

You flip your ****ing lid over some kid who got killed after hanging out with terrorists, but a cop pulls out a gun on American kids building a treehouse and you justify it? Lol.
 
Bob0627 said:
What do you mean "just the constitution"? The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land by its own mandate. Besides it isn't just the Constitution, there are also several international treaties that the US is a signatory to, as well as the Nuremburg Principles that not only describe war crimes in detail but prohibit it. International treaties become part of the Constitution via the Supremacy clause.
Click to expand...

I mean just as in...there's nothing specific? That's it? He just says "the constitution" and expects that to end the discussion? That's funny.
 
jamesrage said:
Again a drone bombing someone is conducting warfare.We are not at war with Yemen so we have no business dropping bombs and rockets in a country we are not at war with.
Click to expand...

And we're not attacking any Yemeni government targets, so your point is moot. We're not at war with the Yemeni government, nor are we attacking Yemeni government targets. You don't have a point here. There's no contradiction.

You a full of **** if you honestly think people want a foreign government coming in and bombing innocent civilians.
Click to expand...

No one wants innocent civilians killed, have you been drinking? Many people, though, are willing to live within a margin of error. You are, for example.

Would you want a another country coming into the USA to bomb civilians and alleged terrorists?
Click to expand...

I might. Because I'm not all emotion. Are you?

lt is not.Conducting warfare in countries we are not war with will only harm us in the future and open us to other countries doing the same to us.
Click to expand...

Oh stop. It worked in the Philippines. Are you just spouting off talking points now? This is so sad.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
I mean just as in...there's nothing specific? That's it? He just says "the constitution" and expects that to end the discussion? That's funny.
Click to expand...

Would you like an answer from me? I'm not going to speak for him, just for me.
 
Bob0627 said:
Would you like an answer from me? I'm not going to speak for him, just for me.
Click to expand...

Well...no? You're not the one who said "the constitution!" when I asked about which law it was against.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Oh so you didn't read it. Interesting.
Click to expand...

I lived it OWO. That's way better, and more memorable, than reading about it years later. John Yoo is a domestic enemy of the US Constitution, and his boss considered it to be but a piece of paper.

Are you offering up this man as being wise and honorable? I hope not
 
Bob0627 said:
(Reuters) - A federal judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit filed against the U.S. government by the families of three American citizens killed by U.S. drones in Yemen, saying senior officials cannot be held personally responsible for money damages for the act of conducting war.

Lawsuit over American drone strikes dismissed by U.S. judge | Reuters

This is injustice on many different levels.

1. The US government has not declared war on any nation, specifically Yemen.
2. This was a targeted assassination, not a battle in any war zone.
3. It was SPECIFICALLY directed at American citizens, civilians, not foreign troops.
4. In legal terms, the dismissal is a violation of the First Amendment's protected right of redress.

I'm sure there's more but these are some of the main issues.
Click to expand...

I think the judge was right, there is no legal basis for any of those points.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
And we're not attacking any Yemeni government targets, so your point is moot. We're not at war with the Yemeni government, nor are we attacking Yemeni government targets. You don't have a point here. There's no contradiction.
Click to expand...
We are conducting warfare in Yemen.We are not at war with Yemen.You can not declare war on groups of people or individuals.


No one wants innocent civilians killed, have you been drinking?
Click to expand...
If you support drone strike in a country that we are not at war with just to nail a few alleged terrorists then you.

Many people, though, are willing to live within a margin of error. You are, for example.
Click to expand...

The innocent people killed are just a margin of error to you?That is some ****ed up thinking.
I might. Because I'm not all emotion. Are you?
Click to expand...

I consider myself a nationalist/patriotic American. I would never support another country dropping bombs in the US.Borders mean something to me. The fact that you would even consider another nation supporting this to our country proves that you are unpatriotic and therefore anti-American.


Oh stop. It worked in the Philippines. Are you just spouting off talking points now? This is so sad
Click to expand...
.


What is sad is you supporting dropping bombs in countries we are not at war with.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
We are conducting warfare in Yemen.We are not at war with Yemen.You can not declare war on groups of people or individuals.
Click to expand...

Yes, you can.

If you support drone strike in a country that we are not at war with just to nail a few alleged terrorists then you.
Click to expand...

Then I what?

The innocent people killed are just a margin of error to you?That is some ****ed up thinking.
Click to expand...

Yep. Sorry dude, that's what happens in war.

I consider myself a nationalist/patriotic American. I would never support another country dropping bombs in the US.Borders mean something to me. The fact that you would even consider another nation supporting this to our country proves that you are unpatriotic and therefore anti-American.
Click to expand...

lol "proves"? hahahahahha

What is sad is you supporting dropping bombs in countries we are not at war with.
Click to expand...

Err...it's somehow "less sad"? Your arguments don't even make any sense.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Yes, you can.
Click to expand...

No you can't

Then I what?
Click to expand...

then you do support killing innocent people.

Yep. Sorry dude, that's what happens in war.
Click to expand...

We are not at war with Yemen so this is not war.

lol "proves"? hahahahahha
Click to expand...

Patriotic Americans do not support other nations using military force inside American borders.

Err...it's somehow "less sad"? Your arguments don't even make any sense.
Click to expand...

What is sad is you trying to justify this nonsense of declaring war on individuals or groups as a means of conducting warfare on countries we are not at war with.
 
jamesrage said:
No you can't
Click to expand...

lol, apparently the US government disagrees.

then you do support killing innocent people.
Click to expand...

Sure, okay.

We are not at war with Yemen so this is not war.
Click to expand...

No, we're at war with al Qaeda.

Patriotic Americans do not support other nations using military force inside American borders.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

What is sad is you trying to justify this nonsense of declaring war on individuals or groups as a means of conducting warfare on countries we are not at war with.
Click to expand...

We're not conducting war on Yemen. You statement is nonsensical.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
lol, apparently the US government disagrees.
Click to expand...

The US government also disagrees with e constitution. So the US government doesn't have any credibility on what is and isn't right.

No, we're at war with al Qaeda.
Click to expand...

A huge line of BS used to conduct war in other countries without actually declaring war.

I disagree.
Click to expand...

Many closet globalist pieces of **** agree with you.Borders and national soverignty mean anything to them.So they would agree with another another country using military force inside our borders.


We're not conducting war on Yemen. You statement is nonsensical.
Click to expand...

We are conducting war in Yemen therefore we are conducting war on Yemen.
 
jamesrage said:
The US government also disagrees with e constitution. So the US government doesn't have any credibility on what is and isn't right.
Click to expand...

Nor do you. Nor is your interpretation of the constitution necessarily right. It's sad a grown man (apparently?) needs to be told that.

A huge line of BS used to conduct war in other countries without actually declaring war.
Click to expand...

Declaring war isn't necessary.

Many closet globalist pieces of **** agree with you.Borders and national soverignty mean anything to them.So they would agree with another another country using military force inside our borders.
Click to expand...

What? Who cares?

We are conducting war in Yemen therefore we are conducting war on Yemen.
Click to expand...

Er...no. That makes no sense. Or as much sense as "You are Tom Hanks because I say you're Tom Hanks".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom