Ammo For Sale

« « Happy Festivus | Home | Obviously, compensating for the size of her penis » »

What could possibly go wrong?

Hope and change: DOJ to America: we won’t reveal the circumstances under which you can be assassinated by us

14 Responses to “What could possibly go wrong?”

  1. John Smith. Says:

    SSDD

  2. HerrBGone Says:

    “When, in the course of human events …”

  3. Les Jones Says:

    Most transparent administration ever.

  4. wizardpc Says:

    Oh, they’re transparent all right

  5. Kristopher Says:

    I still don’t understand the problem here.

    Tokyo Rose was a US citizen. Would anyone have questioned the US Navy if they had been able to drop a one ton GP bomb on her ass?

    AQ is still at war with us. Don’t join AQ, and you won’t get bombed. Simple.

  6. Chas Says:

    Markie Marxist sez: “Yeah! What’s all this about blowing up our Marxist/warrior/hero/jihadi allies?! It’s unconstitutionable and stuff! How can they help us to bring down capitalist America if they’re all blowed up?! It’s just not common communist sense! We need them at least mostly in one piece and certainly not dead! The dead thing doesn’t work for us. It discourages them too much. Do you know how unmotivated they are when they’re dead? Death is a real motivation killer!”

  7. John Smith. Says:

    AQ is still at war with us. Don’t join AQ, and you won’t get bombed. Simple.

    Yeah right simple.. If it is so simple why won’t the government give us the fucking definition??? Its one of those ignorance is no excuse for the law but we will not tell you what the law is routines… The government loves to be the nanny except when it comes to telling your what line you cross to become a terrorist or not… If they made such a statement they would be expected to commit to it… That is why they have not. They know it is a constitutional violation… Violate the rights of one violates the rights of all…

  8. Mr Evilwrench Says:

    Have you seen what passes for the definition of a potential terrorist? As Hubert Farnsworth says, “I don’t want to live on this planet anymore.”

  9. Druid Says:

    They lost me before the first bullet point –

    The DOJ has rejected a Freedom of Information Act request from the New York Times that asked the agency to reveal the legal basis for the newly unveiled American program of strategic drone-attack assassinations of American citizens off the field of battle.

    Summary:

    * The government dropped a bomb on a U.S. citizen,

    1) strategic drone-attack – offing one guy, right or wrong, is not ‘strategic’

    2) off the field of battle – dropping a bomb on some guy pretty much defines ‘field of battle’

    3) assassinations – some would prefer ‘liquidation of underutilized assets’

    What do they expect for an answer to, “reveal the legal basis for the newly unveiled American program of strategic drone-attack assassinations of American citizens off the field of battle…

    Were they asking about soemthing in particular?

  10. John Smith. Says:

    Druid follow the link below the article to see the full article and what they asked specifically…

  11. Druid Says:

    John Smith,

    Yah, al-Awlaki, I guess you missed the /s?

    al-Awlaki – member of al-quada, post 9-11, terrorist, killed in fire-fight, Yemen. (note the period)

  12. Druid Says:

    Follow-on…

    Poor al-Awlaki, didn’t even get to shoot back…
    Does that make it an assassination

  13. Crotalus Says:

    This whole thing started with Bush inferring that the government can call anyone it wants to an “enemy combatant”. Now Obama and the DOJ are making completely unconstitutional plans to act on that, thus making themselves our mortal enemies.

  14. John Smith. Says:

    Funny Druid… Follow this link and see if you think it is still funny…

    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/278318-foia-targeted-killing-complaint.html

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges


bisonAd

Categories

Archives