General Discussion

stillwaiting

(3,795 posts)

206. Isn't it interesting that some people around here tell us metadata isn't really an invasion...

Tue Feb 11, 2014, 06:43 AM

Feb 2014

… of privacy. The government/corporations can't really glean much information from the metadata that they collect from American citizens we're told, BUT

the U.S. Gov't. apparently uses metadata as a basis to KILL people from other nations. Doesn't that seem a little incongruous?

I don't believe that both can be true unless you're willing to admit that the U.S. Gov't. is killing quite a few innocent foreigners abroad.

And, while I believe a lot of information is, in fact, revealed by metadata, thus making the collection of this data a clear violation of our civil rights, I do not think it's very rational, or sane, to use metadata as a sole basis in making targeted drone strike decisions. A lot of innocent people are surely being killed, and we are creating more terrorists than we are killing in all likelihood.

*** A proud member of the reality based community (and it's a liberal one).

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

304 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

How the NSA Helps the US Assassinate (Greenwald / Scahill) [View all] Octafish Feb 2014 OP

Did some folks really not know that intelligence efforts help direct military action when it occurs? stevenleser Feb 2014 #1

When did the Democratic Party become the party of assassins? reddread Feb 2014 #2

If you're going to call war "assassination", that happened back when the party was founded ConservativeDemocrat Feb 2014 #92

You rationalize however you like. It's assassination. And the Democratic rhett o rick Feb 2014 #185

+1 dreamnightwind Feb 2014 #202

Sad that's all you got out of it. Octafish Feb 2014 #3

Is the drones program secret? I think its one of the most heavily debated policy items. stevenleser Feb 2014 #10

whats to debate about extrajudicial killings? reddread Feb 2014 #13

Don't tell me, let me guess. You would have been in favor of letting the NAZIs do whatever they want ConservativeDemocrat Feb 2014 #93

What NAZIs? Octafish Feb 2014 #100

There's a new book, just published, with all kinds of details about Operation Paperclip Electric Monk Feb 2014 #121

After the war they weren't trying to kill us... ConservativeDemocrat Feb 2014 #124

ridiculous assertion, yours. grasswire Feb 2014 #122

I guess he wanted to lose the argument. Rex Feb 2014 #143

Thats not what the rule states. phleshdef Feb 2014 #295

So "ridiculous" you can't manage to explain why they are not identical situations... ConservativeDemocrat Feb 2014 #179

The "crime" that these people are being killed for is not terrorism. reusrename Feb 2014 #189

Please read the article rather than just making things up... ConservativeDemocrat Feb 2014 #197

The only evidence they have is metadata. reusrename Feb 2014 #199

Isn't it interesting that some people around here tell us metadata isn't really an invasion... stillwaiting Feb 2014 #206

It really isn't about terrorism at all. Other than the terror carried out during the strikes. reusrename Feb 2014 #219

What sheer desperation made you type that? Rex Feb 2014 #142

Look at item #12... ConservativeDemocrat Feb 2014 #180

Pathetic (nt) malokvale77 Feb 2014 #285

Unanswered questions G_j Feb 2014 #14

Thanks to real journalists, like Jeremy Scahill it is no longer a secret. They sure worked hard to sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #31

It was never a secret. No supposed journalistic superheroes were necessary. nt stevenleser Feb 2014 #47

We have a wonderful open government. Who needs real journalists anymore? L0oniX Feb 2014 #61

So true. And Ronald Reagan was a good actor. Octafish Feb 2014 #68

True. Enthusiast Feb 2014 #155

A fairness doctrine would put Fux out of business and kill off the GOP. L0oniX Feb 2014 #157

For the doubters about the reason behind the phone call records, here they can read Thinkingabout Feb 2014 #83

The goal of wholesale surveillance, as Arendt wrote in ''The Origins of Totalitarianism''... Octafish Feb 2014 #128

This what these writers have written, do we ignore what Greenwald has now stated? Thinkingabout Feb 2014 #160

We're not supposed to notice hypocrisy like that from Greenwald, and I'm sure they will consider you stevenleser Feb 2014 #279

I guess this us a problem when we remember what is said ans written. Thinkingabout Feb 2014 #297

Nice variation on the "nothing to see here" talking point. bobduca Feb 2014 #209

You may be right, nothing new, known much befire 2013 but some just seem to be learning Thinkingabout Feb 2014 #238

Thanks to world renowned and respected Journalists, like Jeremy Schahill, the Secret Drone program sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #85

NY Times mentioned Combat drone use in Afghanistan in October 2001 WAY before Scahill stevenleser Feb 2014 #283

Are you aware that WE DUers, read those articles back then and many more? sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #296

It's sad that supposed Democrats would condone drone murders. We are not at war. But some rhett o rick Feb 2014 #186

Funny we found out about the depth and extent of the drone program MyNameGoesHere Feb 2014 #52

No, we didnt. There have been tons of NY Times articles on the subject since 2001. stevenleser Feb 2014 #284

I cannot help your misinterpretation MyNameGoesHere Feb 2014 #289

What you can't explain is why you didn't know this info was out there stevenleser Feb 2014 #299

It may not be secret but it certainly is not one of the most heavily debated policy items cali Feb 2014 #58

Its obvious that it is. All one has to do is put the word "Drones" in a google search. 11.7 million stevenleser Feb 2014 #262

+1 BitSin Feb 2014 #288

LINCOLN WAS SHOT IN A THEATRE! BY AN ASSASSIN! Should fit in good with your show. Autumn Feb 2014 #6

to think assassination used to be a BAD thing? reddread Feb 2014 #37

+1 L0oniX Feb 2014 #63

Did people know that the Military has replaced Due Process regarding killing American Citizens, sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #22

It's lovely that you want to give your opinion on something else, but that is not what I asked. stevenleser Feb 2014 #24

Lol, well if you can give your opinion I don't see why you would object to getting a response to sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #35

If everyone did that, there would be no point to trying to discuss anything. That is why hijacking stevenleser Feb 2014 #42

Irony alert: You hijacked this thread. Is that also "behaving like a troll"? L0oniX Feb 2014 #65

Amazing, isn't it? Whenever someone reduces themselves to name calling, I have always sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #91

. Autumn Feb 2014 #66

Addressing the topic of the OP is 'hi-jacking' a thread? Since when? sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #90

The topic of my thread was, "Did people not know that the military and intel work together to... stevenleser Feb 2014 #263

Your thread? This isn't your thread. sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #278

Yes, as soon as I responded, I started a thread. An OP is not the same thing as a thread. nt stevenleser Feb 2014 #281

An OP and a thread are not the same thing. reusrename Feb 2014 #291

You hijacked the OP, and than tried to accuse others who brought the topic BACK on topic sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #294

LOL! Enthusiast Feb 2014 #156

Yes, I know, threadjacking is funny when you support the goals of the threadjacker. stevenleser Feb 2014 #264

Amazing. Just amazing. reusrename Feb 2014 #190

He dares because he's a self-approved bobduca Feb 2014 #211

Yup, I'm right. I was right when I posted that and I am right now. stevenleser Feb 2014 #265

Oh man, I’m not sure where to begin. reusrename Feb 2014 #290

Post removed Post removed Feb 2014 #210

The issue is not that the military works with the intelligence community when it plans its strikes. Maedhros Feb 2014 #94

Yes, actually, that is the entire point of the OP. This is supposedly a big reveal. stevenleser Feb 2014 #268

Innocent people are dying from this shit. Maedhros Feb 2014 #275

Nope. I will do nothing that you ask. stevenleser Feb 2014 #276

Do you know what it's called when someone tries to lead an argument using questions? Look rhett o rick Feb 2014 #187

socratic method? nt arely staircase Feb 2014 #216

Fauxian rhett o rick Feb 2014 #217

hah! reusrename Feb 2014 #292

Take down of the FAIL post. WIN!!! grahamhgreen Feb 2014 #150

Non sequiturs and threadjacking does not constitute a takedown. nt stevenleser Feb 2014 #259

You're right but c'mon...let them at least think you didn't thoroughly debunk that point. great white snark Feb 2014 #300

I think that American citizens.... Adrahil Feb 2014 #181

Apparently they didn't Progressive dog Feb 2014 #64

Which is it? reusrename Feb 2014 #193

There is no which there. Progressive dog Feb 2014 #208

You must be joking. reusrename Feb 2014 #221

What was not possible? Progressive dog Feb 2014 #224

Sorry, it's so nutty that it IS rather hard to follow. reusrename Feb 2014 #225

Okay, I don't get how the specific data on Progressive dog Feb 2014 #226

Then you should probably avoid commenting and continue asking questions instead. reusrename Feb 2014 #233

You should avoid answering questions if you don't know the answer Progressive dog Feb 2014 #244

A month ago he's arguing that it cannot be done. reusrename Feb 2014 #245

Yes he was but he knows that Progressive dog Feb 2014 #246

I fear that the enemy are civilians. reusrename Feb 2014 #247

I see no doublethink and Progressive dog Feb 2014 #250

Why would you read it any other way? That's an odd thing to insinuate. reusrename Feb 2014 #252

1984 is not a prophecy, it is fiction. Progressive dog Feb 2014 #253

Sure they can. Of course they can. reusrename Feb 2014 #254

It's not intelligence when you kill civilians and create more terrorists, duh. grahamhgreen Feb 2014 #148

^^^^this^^^^ L0oniX Feb 2014 #170

Recommended. Heres another article that fits in nicely with yours. Autumn Feb 2014 #4

Thanks, Autumn! Octafish Feb 2014 #7

So what should be done if these guidelines are in force? randome Feb 2014 #5

Like turning 16-year-old American citizens into bug splat without due process? Octafish Feb 2014 #8

You're apparently bothered by use of data to make it more accurate treestar Feb 2014 #9

ODS? Is that the opposite of Obamaphilia? Octafish Feb 2014 #12

Sad ain't it? Rex Feb 2014 #144

ODS is defending these egregious violation of our Constitution that all these elected officials sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #25

So sayeth Sabrina, Justice of the Supreme Court! ConservativeDemocrat Feb 2014 #96

Well, thank you. But one only needs to be a first grader to, and I know a few, to understand the sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #161

"ODS" is the generic catch-all for anyone who disagrees with Obama mindwalker_i Feb 2014 #99

At least one of our DU attorneys has weighed in and said that this is already congressionally stevenleser Feb 2014 #11

torture was OK, also reddread Feb 2014 #15

yeah thanks to John Woo and his perverted neverforget Feb 2014 #86

Hey, man, if some anonymous lawyer on a web site says it's OK, Maedhros Feb 2014 #98

right you are, the backers of these policies arent going to skimp on procedure reddread Feb 2014 #115

So, if it's OK for NSA to disregard Bill of Rights, it's OK for the president to kill who he wants. Octafish Feb 2014 #16

Those terms and amendments and rights have specific meanings judged by appellate courts and the stevenleser Feb 2014 #20

Would that be the same SCOTUS that decided Bush v Gore 5-4? Octafish Feb 2014 #28

So your attempt at a point is that because an appellate court or the SCOTUS has made mistakes stevenleser Feb 2014 #40

No, that's not my point. Octafish Feb 2014 #51

Actually, that is exactly the point you tried to make. nt stevenleser Feb 2014 #274

"made mistakes"? grasswire Feb 2014 #126

Clarence Thomas wasnt a mistake either reddread Feb 2014 #136

Hardly mistakes. Enthusiast Feb 2014 #158

a great example of plonkable rhetoric bobduca Feb 2014 #203

Not really. Arecent court questioned the constitutionality of NSA surveillance programs and SCOTUS Vattel Feb 2014 #191

I'm still waiting for Sanders, Warren, or heck..even Paul to submit a repeal of the AUMF of 9/18/01. msanthrope Feb 2014 #67

Authorized by whom? Congress? Octafish Feb 2014 #74

Sigh....let me explain this...again. The constitutional basis for drones derives from the AUMF of msanthrope Feb 2014 #78

Thanks. In what states do you practice law? Octafish Feb 2014 #81

The United States is not at war with any nation right now. [n/t] Maedhros Feb 2014 #102

PA primarily, 3rd circuit. Am barred in other jurisdictions that I do not currently msanthrope Feb 2014 #109

You haven't studied or practiced law. That's why it doesnt make sense to you. stevenleser Feb 2014 #267

I am a journalist. Octafish Feb 2014 #269

I have several. IT and Journalism are just two. You still aren't a lawyer. nt stevenleser Feb 2014 #272

So what? I'm a citizen and I have a right to express my opinion on the law. Octafish Feb 2014 #277

And I have the right to point out that a lawyers opinion matters more. nt stevenleser Feb 2014 #280

Not to me and not in a democracy. Octafish Feb 2014 #282

That isn't really the case at all, is it. The AUMF is about the twin towers. Right? reusrename Feb 2014 #201

No...it really is the case. The AUMF of 9/18/01 empowered the President to pursue those msanthrope Feb 2014 #207

So they can target anyone, correct? reusrename Feb 2014 #218

No..only those people whose activities put them under the purview of that msanthrope Feb 2014 #227

Which is everyone, correct? reusrename Feb 2014 #228

Um, no. And why would persons contemplated under the AUMF be charged in an Article III court while msanthrope Feb 2014 #229

Who exactly is identified? reusrename Feb 2014 #230

Can you clarify your inquiry? And I didn't say no one was in custody. nt msanthrope Feb 2014 #232

You are saying that we are only killing folks who have already been identified. reusrename Feb 2014 #234

Um, no. I'm saying we are targeting people already identified. As for how the msanthrope Feb 2014 #235

Um, no. You said they are already established under the authorization. reusrename Feb 2014 #237

I think we are talking at cross purposes here...why not ask me specific questions about specific msanthrope Feb 2014 #239

The specific people that the authorization specifically authorized for killing... reusrename Feb 2014 #240

Wait...are you suggesting that a specific person must be targeted by an AUMF? That's a crapload msanthrope Feb 2014 #243

Declarations of war? reusrename Feb 2014 #293

AlQaeda and it's affiliates. Thus, we had a seperate AUMF for Iraq. Currently, msanthrope Feb 2014 #301

Rinse, lather, repeat. reusrename Feb 2014 #303

Yes. You are correct. All three branches of government have confirmed that persons msanthrope Feb 2014 #304

That is not what I said. nt stevenleser Feb 2014 #266

So you supported all of Bush's policies, then. All of them were Congressionally authorized. Thanks, sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #26

No, they weren't. nt stevenleser Feb 2014 #33

Which ones were not Congressionally approved of during the Bush years? sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #41

Iraq war conditions were not met, torture was not approved, warrantless wiretapping, etc. stevenleser Feb 2014 #44

Really? Then why has no one been prosecuted for what, if they eg, lied us into war, would be major sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #55

Do you really not know the answer to that question? stevenleser Feb 2014 #260

OFFS ...so that makes it morally ok? jeeze L0oniX Feb 2014 #45

This message was self-deleted by its author neverforget Feb 2014 #84

How about some lawyers who actually know what they are talking about re the US Constitution: sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #163

You can ask the person who posted that directly. They are the attorney. nt stevenleser Feb 2014 #261

I don't ask for facts from internet 'experts'. We have plenty of actual experts sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #270

I know msanthrope in real life. She is an attorney, and you have no right to slander her. nt stevenleser Feb 2014 #273

I don't know either of you in RL so to me you are merely strangers on the internet and you have some sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #302

What happens when a cop sees someone pointing a gun at someone and has no recourse but to shoot? randome Feb 2014 #29

The 16-year old American was at a barbecue. Octafish Feb 2014 #38

I understand that. randome Feb 2014 #39

Apparently with Ibrahaim Al- Banna, the strike target. Although reports vary...it seems the strike msanthrope Feb 2014 #69

Which Droned US Citizen was sending Mushroom Clouds our way? And how many bystanders do cops sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #50

Cop shootings are always controversial. So is this, there's no denying that. randome Feb 2014 #53

I don't base my opinions on 'what ifs', I base them on facts. 'Supposing there really were sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #95

I didn't create much of a scenario. It's entirely plausible based on the guidelines in place. randome Feb 2014 #101

Well, you just stated the problem right there. We KNOW there are dead people, bodies, men, women and sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #169

Imaginary "go orders." Imaginary "atrocities." Maedhros Feb 2014 #105

I seriously doubt we are killing people based solely on algorithms. randome Feb 2014 #116

False choice: drones or boots on the ground. Maedhros Feb 2014 #119

You forgot the third choice: let people die and feel no guilt. randome Feb 2014 #120

Again, more imaginary threats. Maedhros Feb 2014 #138

Well what do you expect? Facts and reality? Rex Feb 2014 #145

Remember when progressives and liberals mocked Maedhros Feb 2014 #164

willfully blind questionseverything Feb 2014 #140

False dichotomy fail. How bout we leave them alone and stop creating terror and horror. grahamhgreen Feb 2014 #154

Boots on the ground? Why would we have 'boots anywhere' unless we are being invaded with actual sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #220

Faulty analogy. Maedhros Feb 2014 #103

I would think many of the operations prevented have not been directed at the U.S. randome Feb 2014 #111

Our assumption that we are the world's police force, and that we can bust in anyone's door Maedhros Feb 2014 #117

War is very profitable for a select group of 'contractors'. To justify war we need an 'enemy'. sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #222

But you forget about the "nits make lice" meme zeemike Feb 2014 #77

it bothers me questionseverything Feb 2014 #127

Thanks, questionseverything. Octafish Feb 2014 #135

the 503 might just be tons of traffic or a dos attack questionseverything Feb 2014 #139

father of the year that al-Awlaki nt arely staircase Feb 2014 #215

And how does targeting a cell phone fit into those guidlines? SomethingFishy Feb 2014 #27

I honestly don't know. randome Feb 2014 #34

"I honestly don't know" Exactly my point! SomethingFishy Feb 2014 #48

Micro-managing the military is also not the answer, though. randome Feb 2014 #59

How do the loyalists determine who is going to defend what here? bobduca Feb 2014 #212

Because killing innocent people is wrong. grahamhgreen Feb 2014 #80

Agree. But when it happens by accident, do we condemn the person who pulled the trigger? randome Feb 2014 #89

If the trigger was pulled on purpose, and the target was unclear, and there may be innocents grahamhgreen Feb 2014 #141

Nobody is able to adequately explain how the people we are blowing up with drones Maedhros Feb 2014 #97

I doubt that killing a few hundred people will do ANYTHING for corporate profit. randome Feb 2014 #104

Unless they are activists interfering with say, privatizing nationalized oil. grahamhgreen Feb 2014 #205

They don't need to explain it, they accept and embrace secret wars bobduca Feb 2014 #213

Remember "US persons" means US corporations! So a threat to corporate interests might get you the grahamhgreen Feb 2014 #204

Amy Goodman had them on DemocracyNow.org this AM... ReRe Feb 2014 #17

Thanks, ReRe! Octafish Feb 2014 #19

They always do a transcript... ReRe Feb 2014 #21

Terrorists sell their old phones on Ebay. L0oniX Feb 2014 #36

We have a local charity that gives them to victims of domestic violence. Octafish Feb 2014 #43

Holy Moley! ReRe Feb 2014 #49

Beware of UPS delivery of small box with phone. L0oniX Feb 2014 #57

Not to worry... ReRe Feb 2014 #60

drone operator boot camp psych: “They might have been terrorists,” he says L0oniX Feb 2014 #70

What a effing nightmare... ReRe Feb 2014 #76

K&R woo me with science Feb 2014 #18

Secret Government Privatized Killing Scenarios by AMWAY Octafish Feb 2014 #23

Pro government assassin shills will now proceed to place Jeremy Scahill under the bus. L0oniX Feb 2014 #30

It's weird, watching the change. Octafish Feb 2014 #87

Things have changed here for the worse but in the outside real world, most folks are becoming more xiamiam Feb 2014 #147

So, some dudes in a cave in Afghanistan caused all this and 9/11 too??? blkmusclmachine Feb 2014 #32

Amazing, wot? Here's the guy that's really made out like a bandit. Heh heh heh. Octafish Feb 2014 #166

Octafish, do you think there's a source out there... grasswire Feb 2014 #231

for the public record, link to WSWS on Democratic support for Bush spy powers grasswire Feb 2014 #236

Thank you, grasswire! Octafish Feb 2014 #242

Couple DUers are pals of Mr. Fitrakis... Octafish Feb 2014 #249

Is Greenwald ProSense Feb 2014 #46

Didn't bother to read it did you. SomethingFishy Feb 2014 #54

I read enough to know that ProSense Feb 2014 #82

It makes me think about the possibility ... JoePhilly Feb 2014 #114

"directly responsible for deadly attacks against U.S. citizens" TheMathieu Feb 2014 #56

Recommend. The AP report along with the revelations from "Intercept" KoKo Feb 2014 #62

Another breathless expose of spy agencies actually spying Progressive dog Feb 2014 #71

Drone Attack Against U.S. Citizen Being Considered Octafish Feb 2014 #72

So he should be treated differently than other Progressive dog Feb 2014 #75

You know who got the Military Industrial Complex started down the counter-terrorism road? Octafish Feb 2014 #79

Based upon the content of your posts, you are anything but "Progressive" Maedhros Feb 2014 #112

Boy does your opinion make me feel bad Progressive dog Feb 2014 #151

Not whining about the existence of the spy agency. Maedhros Feb 2014 #162

The claims from the "journalist" who supported Bush Progressive dog Feb 2014 #167

If you attack the claim, then you must refute the evidence behind the claim. Maedhros Feb 2014 #168

There is no evidence that what the NSA is doing is Progressive dog Feb 2014 #171

As you know, there is ample reason to believe the NSA's data collection is illegal. Maedhros Feb 2014 #173

Endorsements are not evidence Progressive dog Feb 2014 #176

Um, does the 4th amendment ring a bell? Maybe you've heard of it? Electric Monk Feb 2014 #174

Perhaps you've heard of the Constitution and the Progressive dog Feb 2014 #178

The NSA is evidence that the terrorists have won ...and some people are fine with that. L0oniX Feb 2014 #194

You are not alone! L0oniX Feb 2014 #172

Mr. Octafish 90-percent Feb 2014 #73

Thank you, 90% Jimmy! Octafish Feb 2014 #223

First month without a US drone strike in Pakistan for over two years ProSense Feb 2014 #88

Bureau of Investigative Journalism wrote about it a week ago. Octafish Feb 2014 #106

Um, that's the piece I posted. n/t ProSense Feb 2014 #107

So, what? I wanted to be sure you saw it. Octafish Feb 2014 #123

You wanted to be sure I "saw" what I posted? ProSense Feb 2014 #129

Yeah. Because you cut out the most important part. Octafish Feb 2014 #130

LOL! Is that why you announced: "Bureau of Investigative Journalism wrote about it a week ago." ProSense Feb 2014 #132

When you post so much that's irrelevant, it's easy to miss the most important part. Octafish Feb 2014 #137

+1 Rex Feb 2014 #146

official trolls are bobduca Feb 2014 #196

Obama didn't kill any people in Pakistan for a whole month?! Give that man a peace prize. DesMoinesDem Feb 2014 #108

You know what they say, ProSense Feb 2014 #110

You made me follow a link to your post which linked to your post which had no link to the source. DesMoinesDem Feb 2014 #118

I "made" you? n/t ProSense Feb 2014 #131

That's your reply? You're right, I should just ignore your links and quotes like everyone else. DesMoinesDem Feb 2014 #133

Yes. n/t ProSense Feb 2014 #134

Guess this is news to some but more proof the use of phone call records are being used for Thinkingabout Feb 2014 #113

The goal of wholesale surveillance to have info ready when time to arrest a certain population. Octafish Feb 2014 #153

This may have been written as a goal except Greenwald has furnished more information Thinkingabout Feb 2014 #159

No. They locate phones that may or may not be in the possession of a terrorist. Luminous Animal Feb 2014 #175

Did you read the first paragraph in your post? Thinkingabout Feb 2014 #177

Yes I did. Luminous Animal Feb 2014 #182

I think this post, with the red font, should be an OP, woo me with science Feb 2014 #298

K&R myrna minx Feb 2014 #125

k & r! n/t wildbilln864 Feb 2014 #149

a story on RT claims the Obama admin is now contemplating the murder of another US citizen... wildbilln864 Feb 2014 #152

`` G_j Feb 2014 #165

I got him a valentine for you, G_j. johnnyreb Feb 2014 #183

thank you! G_j Feb 2014 #184

Recommend! KoKo Feb 2014 #188

"Assassinate"? Really? jazzimov Feb 2014 #192

There is no reason to be at war other than military hegemony over the world eridani Feb 2014 #198

K&R bobduca Feb 2014 #195

K&R nt raouldukelives Feb 2014 #200

well this is the no shit story of the decade arely staircase Feb 2014 #214

Anyone who thinks this is a big reveal has really exposed themselves as one of two things... stevenleser Feb 2014 #271

and a kick! n/t wildbilln864 Feb 2014 #241

Complete and utter sensationalistic tripe. idendoit Feb 2014 #248

kick woo me with science Feb 2014 #251

K&R bobthedrummer Feb 2014 #255

K&R avaistheone1 Feb 2014 #256

genuinely nauseating. Kurovski Feb 2014 #257

Kick n/t bobthedrummer Feb 2014 #258

Thanks Octafish... malokvale77 Feb 2014 #286

HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!! WillyT Feb 2014 #287