We Kill People Based on Metadata

We Kill People Based on Metadata May 30, 2014

No. Seriously.

Fortunately, it’s just worthless foreigners we are reasonably sure need killing. And if it’s a mistake, no big deal. It’s not like we are doing everything we can to engender hatred of the US and create a fertile recruiting ground for more Islamic radicalism.

Best part: It’s just a matter of time before our National Security Regime decides that due process is slowing down the swift and efficient murder of American citizen Caesar is pretty sure are (or will be) guilty of something. His Majesty King Obama has made great strides in that direction. Because Safety!

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Dave G.

    Land of the free. I suppose that’s why we’ve been told – and rightly so – that even something like 9/11, as tragic and horrible as it was, should not be grounds for chiseling away at our rights and freedoms. After all, if history teaches us anything, it’s that people often go for the mile after getting the first inch; once those first rights are compromised, it’s only a matter of time. And that appears to be what’s happened here.

    • chezami

      Wow. You’re still laboring to make excuses for Joe the Plumber ice-hearted remarks. Amazing.

      • Dave G.

        No. I’m laboring to be consistent.

      • kenofken

        While we’re on the subject, I think it’s fair to ask Joe how our surveillance and pre-emptive extrajudicial-killing regime took shape. The whole point of his and the NRA’s absolutist construction of the Second Amendment – “my guns are worth more than your dead kids” – was tyranny deterrence. Just knowing that self-styled militias owned AR-15s and 30-round magazines was supposed to cow our government into docility. Governments never treat well-armed citizens as subjects, and invariably turn on populations who don’t stockpile and carry military and police grade hardware at all times. How could this have happened, Joe? Oh, wait, nevermind. I looked up the answer. It’s more guns. It’s been a long week and I’m slipping….

        • Dave G.

          It looks like they are wrong. And I wonder if that is much worse than being conveniently right.

        • Were the US population not well armed, we would currently be in a civil war. The confidence that an armed populace bred has led to the right holding fire and deciding to wait out this presidency. This is something that I am profoundly grateful for as I hate the thought of such a war. Anybody paying attention has to admit, the preconditions exist.

          The chief law enforcement officer of the US has been found in contempt of Congress for his part in covering up the truth about arming Mexican drug gangs in a plot that led to the deaths of two US law enforcement officers and many hundreds of Mexicans.

          The 8th death of a US ambassador in the history of the Republic is also being stonewalled as gunrunning accusations swirl around our operation in Benghazi. This time it was guns to Syrian groups tied to Al Queda.

          The extensive refusal to enforce laws inconvenient to the administration, is tremendously alarming. Anybody who doubts this is a seed of war should examine the events in Chile during the Allende regime.

          • kirthigdon

            The US population is not well armed at all compared to the regime and the lesson of the last civil war is well remembered, not to mention the regime’s brutality against defenseless populations in places like Iraq, Yemen, and Somalia. Ownership of individual firearms is widespread in those countries and expertise exceeds that of most people in the US, yet it does them no good against the drones and spec ops troops of the US. Should the Republicans take power again, they will continue the brutal policies of Obama which he inherited from Bush. Should it be Clinton or some other Demo, the same will result. I don’t object to gun ownership for self-defense against non-governmental criminals, for hunting, for recreational shooting, collecting, etc. But anyone who thinks that individual gun ownership is a check on the power of the evil empire is not observing very carefully what goes on.

            Kirt Higdon

            • The usual ratio at which an insurgency expects to win is a force ration of 1:10, that is if the government is up to 10 times better armed than the insurgent force, the government is in deep trouble.

              Some skirmishes are being fought in recruiting for Oath Keepers and in purging inconvenient officers on the other side of the ledger. That sort of thing makes the math difficult when you’re looking to usurp a republic. The current push to have units in the US routinely armed is another chess move in the pre-position fight.

              Individual gun ownership throws a great number of unknowns into any calculation for a coup. Nobody knows how well and in what direction the unorganized militia would turn. If you think that professionals will just roll the dice in a coup-of-choice that puts their lives at risk in a treason trial afterwards, that’s your prerogative. It’s a legitimate opinion, but so is the opposite.

              Deep blue Connecticut can’t even rustle up enough force to enforce their present gun restriction legislation and neither can New York. A critical number of police are refusing to obey orders, whether out of fidelity towards the Constitution or a healthy sense of self-preservation is not a subject that is being polled. That sense of self-preservation? That’s how individual gun ownership works as a check on tyranny.

              • kirthigdon

                There is no insurgency nor the prospect of one, nor any impending gun grab. In 2016, one candidate or other of the duopoly will be chosen president of the evil empire. Most likely it will be Hillary, but (who knows) maybe Jeb. Life in the porno culture will go on as before with the police still obeying orders to brutalize citizens or exceeding the orders. I’ll believe that part about a critical number of police refusing to obey orders when the numbers of SWAT raids start drastically declining.

                Kirt Higdon

                • No insurgency? The Senate Majority leader begs to differ. Go argue it out with him, or at least read his comments from April of this year:


                  As for impending gun grabs, all rifles and shotguns that carry more than 5 rounds are banned in New York. Notices went out last year. Notices are going out in Connecticut too enforcing their gun bans. They’re slow rolling things at present because too many are pledging to violently resist confiscation. The present promises not to go door to door should be viewed in the light of their now violated past promises not to ban hunting weapons, something not to be depended on.

                  If there’s an incident that would normally end up with the police in temporary possession of your weapon, do you really believe that noncompliant guns will be returned? What would you call that other than gun confiscation?

                  The overuse of SWAT teams is only going to be addressed when you can get public counts of the raids and sufficient details to prove they are being used wrongly. The plural of anecdote is still not data. We likely agree on needed reforms there. I just believe that the SWAT issue is more complex because so little good data is out there. The lack of data is actually a good chunk of the problem.

                  • kirthigdon

                    So you base your analysis of an insurgency on the incoherent senile rantings of Harry Reid, but demand more data to prove that SWAT raids “are being used wrongly”. I’m at a loss to respond, so I think I better just drop out of this dialogue, such as it is.

                    Kirt Higdon

      • Benjamin2.0

        I think you mean “Joe the Plumber’s remarks which became ice-hearted when amended slightly and ripped from their context.” “Can be made to look tacky by citing one cherry-picked example” isn’t equivalent to “wrong.” Otherwise, Bob Sungenis would be a knock-down argument against Catholicism.

        Applied consistently, the standard by which you judge Dave condemns you. Why do you labor to make excuses for Jew-hating, reactionary geocentrists? You should join a sect with no crackpots or, preferably, avoid judging a position according to its weakest arguments rather than its best.

    • Dan C

      Are the rights and freedoms derived from God that you so valiantly insist must be consistently maintained? Is that Bill of Rights a set of equal principles? Would some rights stand before others?

      I would say the right to own guns with limited approval from the community’s representative, the government, is actually am inferior right, well beneath others.

      The insistence on consistency would be valid if as a Catholic these rights were all matters derived from God and actually inferior to any other ends or destinies. The quest for consistency would be relevant if the freedom of religion (which is regulated if one is a peyote-toking Indian) for example was equally important to owning a gun.

      But it’s not. Owning a gun is not a necessarily a God-given right, nor is there much writing spent on that in any encyclical or magisterial teaching.

      Consistency is unrequired. All Amendments in the Bill of Rights are not equal.

      • Dave G.

        Tell that to those who railed against the wire tapping and other actions taken in the wake of 9/11. Either these things are absolute and no tragedies, no matter how horrible, trump them. Or they’re not and we can examine measures that may alter various rights and freedoms in light of such tragedies. One or the other.

      • Dave G.

        Oh, and that also takes into account the idea that those rights I’m personally less interested in aren’t as important as the rights I am personally interested in.

      • Ownership is a right that I do believe has been covered in papal writings, or did you miss that? As far as the ownership of weapons is concerned, Luke 22:36 is clear enough to me. What gray area is left that you would have the popes write about?

  • Christopher Sarsfield

    It’s fine Mark. The man doing some of the killing is a great Catholic general. Who was given an honorary degree by Franciscan University. If he were not a great Catholic, the Cardinal Newman Society would have let us know! Nothing to see here. Just move on.

  • petey

    i read this attitude about the value of foreign lives again this morning.

    “Just ask the Iraqi Kurds and the Shia of the South. When the Kurds
    responded to US provocations, leaflet campaigns, and promises by rising
    up against Saddam in 1991, Bush Senior let them be slaughtered.
    I was in touch, occasionally, with someone in the DIA who’d taken
    part in getting the Kurds to rise up, and asked him how he could live
    with himself after that. He shrugged and said, “They’re just animals.” ”