Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (62148)	2/11/2013 1:35:05 AM
From: RMF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

A terrorist is a terrorist... I don't see the differentiation in whether they are Americans or any other Nationality. I don't see the point you were trying to make in posting that?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (62148)	2/13/2013 10:17:23 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

Mr. July, Your Drone Is Ready The Counterterrorism 2013 Calendar is a grim but quirky reminder of the times we live in.. February 12, 2013, 7:14 p.m. ET By BRUCE FEIRSTEIN As Washington continues to be roiled by controversy over America's drone-strike program—more specifically, the legality of targeting U.S. citizens overseas—you may be tempted to ask: "So who's on the kill list? Anybody I know?" Sure, you could probably ask someone at the CIA to put you on the media distribution list for the next round of classified document leaks. But the answer may already be available on the interactive Web pages of the official 2013 Counterterrorism Calendar put out by the National Counterterrorism Center. In this compendium of horrifics recording the specific dates when a terrorist event occurred, only six days of the year are left untouched. Each month in the calendar features at least one illustrated profile of someone who is presumably worthy of a drone-launched missile. The monthly profiles are sort of like the al Qaeda version of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Calendar—only instead of finding out that Kate Upton was born in Michigan and enjoys riding horses, we learn that Abdul Rahman Yasin was born in Indiana, helped to carry out the 1993 World Trade Center attack, and has a $5 million bounty on his head. As for the on-this-date terror notes, I'll answer the most obvious questions before you ask: Yes, the Sept. 11 entry includes the assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi—so that's final: it was a terrorist attack—but, no, the Nov. 5 entry doesn't mention Nidal Hasan's 2009 shooting spree at Fort Hood. ("Workplace violence" didn't make the cut.) Clicking around the website is a grim reminder of the times we live in. But it also evokes a more mordant response: It feels like what you'd get if George Orwell had gone into the Web-design business with Dr. Strangelove. Among other things, you'll find an illustrated chart of the suggested safe stand-off distances from bomb threats, delineating everything from an outdoor explosion of a run-of-the-mill pipe bomb (70 feet) to a tractor-trailer truck packed with TNT (860 feet). Then there is the field spotter's guide to terrorist-group logos. I can only imagine a corporate branding meeting, with the art director pitching a new logo to his Mad Men clients: "We're using a darker shade of red this time, with the scimitar leaning forward to better communicate your vision for 2013." There are sections in the calendar for identifying counterfeit ID cards and money-laundering schemes (which could double as instruction manuals), and even a handy link about what to do if you spot some suspicious activity nearby. (Hint: Don't use your GPS-enabled smartphone to text-message the FBI: "Target drone here.") The oddest section of all on the site is the "Kids Zone," with links to preschool games and activities (a coloring book featuring "Beaker" the patriotic eagle) but not, alas, something useful, like "Pin the laser target on the terrorist." Truly, I don't mean to disparage the National Counterterrorism Center. Over the past decade, I've met with some of the smart and dedicated people who work there. I know that we all owe them a debt of gratitude for keeping us safe. But at the same time, I'm reminded of an interview I did in the summer of 1999 with a B-2 Stealth bomber pilot at Whiteman Air Force Base near Knob Noster, Mo. Noting the seeming invincibility of the B-2, I asked what he thought would be the Air Force's greatest challenge in the future. Well before the age of drones, the bomber pilot's answer was prescient. "I worry about antiseptic warfare, when you remove the blood component and can wage war without fear of taking any casualties. I'm concerned that our leaders won't fully understand the consequences of what they're doing, because what seems cheap and clean is anything but." Our enemies are real. But so are the moral questions and long-term political implications of drone strikes. You can download the Counterterrorism 2013 Calendar at www.nctc.gov. It lends a whole new meaning to the phrase "Save the date." Mr. Feirstein is a contributing editor at (very liberal) Vanity Fair and the screenwriter of three James Bond movies. online.wsj.com

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (62148)	3/5/2013 9:57:32 PM
From: greatplains_guy	3 Recommendations Respond to of 71588

New Poll Finds 57 Percent of Americans Think Obama's Assassination Program Is Unconstitutional Mike Riggs\|Mar. 1, 2013 10:07 am A new Reason-Rupe poll finds that a majority of Americans think President Obama's targeted killing program, which famously allowed the CIA to assassinate an American-born Muslim cleric living in Yemen as well has his American-born teenage son, to be unconstitutional. When asked if they thought it was "constitutional or unconstitutional for the president of the United States to order the killing of American citizens who are suspected of being terrorists," 57 percent of respondents said they thought it was unconstitutional, including 65 percent of Republicans, 64 percent of independents, and 44 percent of Democrats. Thirty-one percent of respondents said it was constitutional for the president to kill Americans suspected of being terrorists, including 40 percent of Democrats, 27 percent of Republicans, and 28 percent of independents. As evidenced by several different questions, Americans have strong negative feelings about drones. One question asked, When it comes to the use of drones, how concerned are you that the government may abuse its power...a lot, some, not too much, or not at all? In response, 32 percent of respondents said "a lot," 27 percent said "some," 19 percent said "not too much," and only 17 percent said "not at all." Forty percent of respondents, including 34 percent of Democrats, 36 percent of Republicans, and 47 percent of independents, said they were very worried that local police would use drones to invade their privacy; fully 60 percet said they were worried to some degree or another. Only 21 percent of respondents said they were "not at all" worried about police using drones to invade their privacy. Respondents were evenly divided over this question: If a drone flew over your house and was recording you and your property without your permission, do you think should have the right to destroy it, or not? Forty-seven percent said yes, 47 percent said no, 4 percent didn't answer, and one percent said, "It depends." What Reason-Rupe found about Americans' sentiments towards targeted killing contradicts a recent WSJ/NBC poll, which found that "[a] solid majority, 64%, favored the U.S. policy of targeted assassinations of suspected terrorists by the use of drones in countries such as Yemen and Pakistan." There's a pretty simple explanation for the conflicting responses, and you can find it in the questions. Reason-Rupe asked: Do you think it is constitutional or unconstitutional for the president of the United States to order the killing of American citizens who are suspected of being terrorists? While NBC/WSJ asked: As you know, the United States has been targeting and killing suspected members of Al Qaeda and other terrorists in countries such as Pakistan, Yemen, and other countries. Many of these killings have been conducted using unmanned aircraft that are controlled remotely, also known as drones. Do you favor or oppose the use of unmanned aircraft, also known as drones, to kill suspected members of Al Qaeda and other terrorists? If you don't know enough to have an opinion on this issue please just say so. The NBC/WSJ poll question doesn't distinguish between foreign-born terrorists and Americans suspected of being terrorists. That distinction, as Reason-Rupe found, matters. reason.com