Thank you for finally admitting Barry is a murderer.

murder is 'illegal' killing

innocent death during military action isnt 'illegal'

Semantics.

yep

the LAW is full of semantics,,,its the difference between a life or death sentence

Barry can wantonly order the death of anyone he says is a terrorist. He kills kids. No TEARS>

He hates his white part and just the other day some kids, predominantly white, middle to upper middle class kids get wasted and he shows fake tears.

Me thinks it's all to justify disarming the Citizen.

Disarm the NOI and NBP, if you can or want to.



PS
Thanks again for the admission Barry is a murderer with ordering the killing of at least 175 innocent kids.

Murder is intentional homicide with malice aforethought, and yes it is illegal under American law as well as unlawful under any real law.

It is my understanding that the AMERICAN self-proclaimed "muslim cleric" was at worst a propagandist for Al Qaida who took NO MILITANT ACTION HIMSELF beyond sympathizing with the US administration's self-proclaimed "enemy" and acting as a mouthpiece. I ask you, did this warrant the murder by drone of him and his perfectly innocent AMERICAN son? WHY couldn't he simply be arrested, extradicted and put on trial?

…I'll tell you…His greatest crime appears to be exercising his AMERICAN RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH. The administration didn't like what he was saying, but knew he couldn't be prosecuted for a crime, so instead of having him arrested, they "whacked" him AND his innocent 16-year-old AMERICAN son and heaven knows who else that may have been standing nearby when the drone attacked.

In other words, AMERICANS ARE BEING MURDERED by the US Administration, whose commander-in-Chief is Obama. That means HE IS ultimately LIABLE for these crimes against humanity under INTERNATIONAL LAW. Sooner or later, he WILL be brought to account, unless he does what Hitler did and puts a gun to his mouth. At any rate, if I were an American, I sure as hell wouldn't want to take the side of Obama any more than I'd take the side of Stalin as a Soviet, Mao as a Chinese, or Hitler as a German, whether they ever catch up with him of not; I would refuse to be complicit in crimes against humanity, particularly when some of those crimes are committed against my own countrymen…the people of (what could have been if not for its "government") a truly great nation that could have led the world into prosperity and happiness, instead of a "country" that took the American people to war, destruction, poverty, the enslavement (and possibly the mass murder) of its own people.

Innocent death in WAR isn't illegal, but the last time I checked, the US isn't at war with Pakistan, so the innocent deaths resulting from american drone attacks there are very much "illegal"…Most civilized places call it cold-blooded MURDER.

BRAVO!!
Well put.

as I recall, I only clarified what the definition of 'murder' is,,,which doesnt fit anything "Barry' did....

you can disarm the noi and nbp when they are proven to be wantonly killing folks (especially kids) , til then, focus on the nutcases who target children with g uns,,,,

murder . the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. In those clear circumstances, this is first degree murder.




no legal EXCUSE or AUTHORITY, I Believe a US PRESIDENT and the intelligence officials for whom this is their JOB and EXPERTISE,,,have such authority,,,


wars kill many many more innocent people than a targeted DRONE,,,,

I kind of agree with you on this. I don't think the noi & nbp are all that much of a danger. If they prove to be, I'm sure society can "handle it" lawfully. In the meantime, we should deal with the nutcases who target children with weapons...nutcases like Obama.

I dont think Obama has 'targeted' children,,,,

What you "believe" is immaterial and irrelevant. What is a simple fact is that these muderers have no such lawful authority!

Their "JOB" is MURDER and they are very good at it, so I guess it is fair to say that their "EXPERTISE" is in committing crimes against humanity.

BTW...a "legal" excuse is worthless...They have no LAWFUL excuse for their actions.

The difference is pretty clear...Hitler's gestapo & SS had all kinds of "legal" excuses, but no lawful ones...That's what got so many of them hanged after the Nuremberg trials.

Indications are that he has...He has certainly targeted and killed innocent people. Of that there is no doubt. All that remains is to stand him before the ICC for trial. (He won't be alone, I believe Kissinger, both Bushes, Cheney, Rumsfeld & some others are wanted there as well)

what innocent people is there 'no doubt' he targeted?


lets stop killing each other before we waste more money bringing politicians for 'intents' that wont and cant be proven

what I believe is as material and relevant as anyone elses belief on the forum

unless someone here is a supreme court judge tasked with INTERPRETING law?

,,,,thought not,,,

Why don't you get up a petition to bring Obama & the Bushes & Cheney & Kissinger & Clinton before the ICC on the appropriate charges. IT will give them a chance to exonerate themselves in the eyes of the public.

...thought not...

I've never said what I do beyond swimming in a pond...What makes you think I'm NOT a supreme court justice?

Get him into MY court...I promise him a fair trial and a presumption of innocence until proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt....Which is one helluva lot more than he promised to any of the people he's murdered with drones!

Kids killed by Drone is Illegal.

The Drones are equipped with cameras. The Barry ordered operator knows, before the missile is launched, what individual or group they are going to kill.

They killed one dude on a rooftop. They claim he was a terrorist. His old lady was massaging his legs. You see that in the video.

Who knows where her heart was? Who knows what info she was privy to? She was not the target but Barry deemed her unworthy to live.

Dead Paki Babies, dead ghetto rats don't make good argument to ban guns.

BTW. If gun bans are supposed to be worldwide, why are the ME folks allowed to open-carry whatever they want?

The predator strikes are a violation of Pakistan's sovereign rights...They only serve to add fuel to the fire by giving extremists even more incentive...Anti-U.S. sentiment is bad enough Obama!...Your foreign policy sucks!...Brennan and Panetta, same goes for you!...These strikes are illegal, unethical, a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty, and a violation of UN charter....

Everyone who endorses Obama's actions should read this study....Here are the conclusions......

Executive Summary
In the United States, the dominant narrative about the use of drones in Pakistan is of a surgically precise and effective tool that makes the US safer by enabling “targeted killing” of terrorists, with minimal downsides or collateral impacts.[1]

This narrative is false.

Following nine months of intensive research—including two investigations in Pakistan, more than 130 interviews with victims, witnesses, and experts, and review of thousands of pages of documentation and media reporting—this report presents evidence of the damaging and counterproductive effects of current US drone strike policies. Based on extensive interviews with Pakistanis living in the regions directly affected, as well as humanitarian and medical workers, this report provides new and firsthand testimony about the negative impacts US policies are having on the civilians living under drones.

Real threats to US security and to Pakistani civilians exist in the Pakistani border areas now targeted by drones. It is crucial that the US be able to protect itself from terrorist threats, and that the great harm caused by terrorists to Pakistani civilians be addressed. However, in light of significant evidence of harmful impacts to Pakistani civilians and to US interests, current policies to address terrorism through targeted killings and drone strikes must be carefully re-evaluated.

It is essential that public debate about US policies take the negative effects of current policies into account.

First, while civilian casualties are rarely acknowledged by the US government, there is significant evidence that US drone strikes have injured and killed civilians. In public statements, the US states that there have been “no” or “single digit” civilian casualties.”[2] It is difficult to obtain data on strike casualties because of US efforts to shield the drone program from democratic accountability, compounded by the obstacles to independent investigation of strikes in North Waziristan. The best currently available public aggregate data on drone strikes are provided by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ), an independent journalist organization. TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562-3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474-881 were civilians, including 176 children.[3] TBIJ reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228-1,362 individuals. Where media accounts do report civilian casualties, rarely is any information provided about the victims or the communities they leave behind. This report includes the harrowing narratives of many survivors, witnesses, and family members who provided evidence of civilian injuries and deaths in drone strikes to our research team. It also presents detailed accounts of three separate strikes, for which there is evidence of civilian deaths and injuries, including a March 2011 strike on a meeting of tribal elders that killed some 40 individuals.

Second, US drone strike policies cause considerable and under-accounted-for harm to the daily lives of ordinary civilians, beyond death and physical injury. Drones hover twenty-four hours a day over communities in northwest Pakistan, striking homes, vehicles, and public spaces without warning. Their presence terrorizes men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities. Those living under drones have to face the constant worry that a deadly strike may be fired at any moment, and the knowledge that they are powerless to protect themselves. These fears have affected behavior. The US practice of striking one area multiple times, and evidence that it has killed rescuers, makes both community members and humanitarian workers afraid or unwilling to assist injured victims. Some community members shy away from gathering in groups, including important tribal dispute-resolution bodies, out of fear that they may attract the attention of drone operators. Some parents choose to keep their children home, and children injured or traumatized by strikes have dropped out of school. Waziris told our researchers that the strikes have undermined cultural and religious practices related to burial, and made family members afraid to attend funerals. In addition, families who lost loved ones or their homes in drone strikes now struggle to support themselves.

Third, publicly available evidence that the strikes have made the US safer overall is ambiguous at best. The strikes have certainly killed alleged combatants and disrupted armed actor networks. However, serious concerns about the efficacy and counter-productive nature of drone strikes have been raised. The number of “high-level” targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low—estimated at just 2%.[4] Furthermore, evidence suggests that US strikes have facilitated recruitment to violent non-state armed groups, and motivated further violent attacks. As the New York Times has reported, “drones have replaced Guantánamo as the recruiting tool of choice for militants.”[5] Drone strikes have also soured many Pakistanis on cooperation with the US and undermined US-Pakistani rel­ations. One major study shows that 74% of Pakistanis now consider the US an enemy.[6]

Fourth, current US targeted killings and drone strike practices undermine respect for the rule of law and international legal protections and may set dangerous precedents. This report casts doubt on the legality of strikes on individuals or groups not linked to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2011, and who do not pose imminent threats to the US. The US government’s failure to ensure basic transparency and accountability in its targeted killing policies, to provide necessary details about its targeted killing program, or adequately to set out the legal factors involved in decisions to strike hinders necessary democratic debate about a key aspect of US foreign and national security policy. US practices may also facilitate recourse to lethal force around the globe by establishing dangerous precedents for other governments. As drone manufacturers and officials successfully reduce export control barriers, and as more countries develop lethal drone technologies, these risks increase.

http://livingunderdrones.org/report/

ban- to prohibit especially by legal means

as in: Marriage to a minor is (prohibited, banned, ) in america



regulate-


REGULATE- a: to govern or direct according to rule





as in: Marriage is a REGULATED institution in AMerica



,,,,notice in the first sentence, there is a ban on a specific marital situation,, not on MARRIAGE ITSELF

in the second sentence- MARRIAGE IS ALIVE AND WELL STILL,,,has not been 'banned'


somehow, the two issues keep getting blurred