Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: operation inherited resolve: #DOD kills nameless "top" ISIS leaders daily as news proclaims

Posted 2 years ago on July 15, 2015, 5:15 p.m. EST by MattHolck0 (3867)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

DOD still reports its targets as terrorist call it operation inherited resolve evoking prejudicial tactics


Defamation

Defamation.—One of the most seminal shifts in constitutional jurisprudence occurred in 1964 with the Court’s decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.1008

The Times had published a paid advertisement by a civil rights organization criticizing the response of a Southern community to demonstrations led by Dr. Martin Luther King, and containing several factual errors.

The plaintiff, a city commissioner in charge of the police department, claimed that the advertisement had libeled him even though he was not referred to by name or title and even though several of the incidents described had occurred prior to his assumption of office.

Unanimously, the Court reversed the lower court’s judgment for the plaintiff. To the contention that the First Amendment did not protect libelous publications,

the Court replied that constitutional scrutiny could not be foreclosed by the “label” attached to something. “Like . . . the various other formulae for the repression of expression that have been challenged in this Court, libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations.

It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment.”1009

“The general proposition,” the Court continued, “that freedom of expression upon public questions is secured by the First Amendment has long been settled by our decisions .... [W]e consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”1010

Because the advertisement was “an expression of grievance and protest on one of the major public issues of our time, [it] would seem clearly to qualify for the constitutional protection . . .

[unless] it forfeits that protection by the falsity of some of its factual statements and by its alleged defamation of respondent.”1011

Erroneous statement is protected, the Court asserted, there being no exception “for any test of truth.” Error is inevitable in any free debate and to place liability upon that score, and especially to place on the speaker the burden of proving truth, would introduce self-censorship and stifle the free expression which the First Amendment protects.

1012 Nor would injury to official reputation afford a warrant for repressing otherwise free speech. Public officials are subject to public scrutiny and “[c]riticism of their official conduct does not lose its constitutional protection merely because it is effective criticism and hence diminishes their official reputation.”1013

That neither factual error nor defamatory content could penetrate the protective circle of the First Amendment was the “lesson” to be drawn from the great debate over the Sedition Act of 1798, which the Court reviewed in some detail to discern the “central meaning of the First Amendment.”1014

Thus, it appears, the libel law under consideration failed the test of constitutionality because of its kinship with seditious libel, which violated the “central meaning of the First Amendment.”


“The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with ‘actual malice'—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”1015


http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-01/45-defamation.html

calliph

if we say what they want is a kingdom|

then they will accept a top down rule

I hope Israel doesn't bomb Palestine like the US and Brits bomb the semites in response to a deal with a country that isn't bombing anyone

39 Comments

39 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 2 years ago

Shadz ‏@Shadz66 Aug 4

Hannity & #USA's Corporate #MSM think that #BernieSanders is a Crazy #Socialist!! Nope idiots, here's your problem:

Military Pie https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7B56meCIAE2sB7.png

[-] 3 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 2 years ago

State Dept. 'frankly doesn't know' legal authority behind US airstrikes ... RT-19 hours ago The US has been carrying out airstrikes against ISIS in Syria for almost a year, and the latest decision to bomb Syrian government forces in ...

bombs follow the laws of physics

[-] 2 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 2 years ago

KPBS reporter on these days asked "hard hitting" questions to connect ISIS with terrorism

[-] 2 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 2 years ago

I hope Israel doesn't bomb Palestine like the US and Brits bomb the semites in response to a deal with a country that isn't bombing anyone

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 2 years ago

https://twitter.com/sepideh_raha

https://twitter.com/sepideh_raha/status/640986130867965952

Iran is top state sponsor of terrorism: #US official http://dlvr.it/C3x70x #IranTalks #IranDeal #News #USA #UK

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 2 years ago

Dear Matt Holck,

You have been infracted for posting Spam.

Spam is defined as repeatedly posting unwanted and/or unrequested advertising or information.

Please see the here.

ancapailldorcha

Moderator Note

I closed your other thread for a reason. Do this again and you will receive a ban.

Your post: Quote: Originally Posted by Matt Holck View Post the #DOD represent human as other "terrorist" creates a charged "us and them" paradigm just as #racism reckless libel.


DOD fails impartiality naming targets as terrorists in official report

DOD motivate troops

label targets #terrorist invoke bias #hate tactics

soldiers bring home

Occam's razor people over seas not bother hating someone across the world US haters #DOD propaganda

president asked #congress for daily air strike permission 10 to 40 daily congress won't even debate

~40,000 dead from US airstrikes this year 16 x the death at the two towers 911 #congress #DOD

US bombs 8 nations #congress #DOD #Journalist trail institute bias call #targets terrorists #racism result

stop a war No air strike #congress #DOD #Journalist trail institute bias call #targets terrorists #racism result

http://forums.nodoubt.com/showthread.php?9028-DOD-motivate-troops-label-targets-terrorist-invoke-bias-hate-tactics-soldiers-bri


Other Forum Thread http://forums.nodoubt.com/showthread...s-soldiers-bri

http://occupywallst.org/forum/operation-inherited-resolve-dod-calls-its-tareget-/

closed in US politics http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057484137

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 2 years ago

Brian ‏@MrHappy4870 23h23 hours ago

RT @NRO Why a Big-Ship Navy Can’t Win the Wars of the Future http://natl.re/oeUzd2 #USNavy #tcot #tlot #DoD

Matt Holck ‏@Matt_Holck 23h23 hours ago

@MrHappy4870 @NRO war doesn't need to happen

DOD #Journalst belligerent

propagating institutional bias #racism calling targets terrorists

Brian ‏@MrHappy4870 3h3 hours ago

@Matt_Holck The phrase "Islamic terrorist" isn't merely a statement of identity, but a statement of MOTIVATION. That isn't racism @NRO

Matt Holck ‏@Matt_Holck 2h2 hours ago

@MrHappy4870 @NRO the #DOD represent human as other "terrorist" creates a charged "us and them" paradigm just as #racism reckless libel.

Brian ‏@MrHappy4870 3m3 minutes ago

@Matt_Holck The enemy has a say in who are "Us" and who are "Them". Your pet PC theories & ideology hold no water. Fini @NRO

https://twitter.com/MrHappy4870/status/636656906648485888

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 2 years ago

start thread on boards.ie and No doubt

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 2 years ago

Asking ITC Defense Corp. ‏@itc_defense DoD SBIR/STTR ‏@dodsbir

why does why does the face of defense #DOD calls its targets terrorist invoking bias

http://www.defense.gov/News-Article-View/Article/614271/airstrikes-hit-isil-in-syria-iraq?

https://twitter.com/Matt_Holck/status/634743551323074561

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 2 years ago

Defamation

Defamation.—One of the most seminal shifts in constitutional jurisprudence occurred in 1964 with the Court’s decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.1008

The Times had published a paid advertisement by a civil rights organization criticizing the response of a Southern community to demonstrations led by Dr. Martin Luther King, and containing several factual errors.

The plaintiff, a city commissioner in charge of the police department, claimed that the advertisement had libeled him even though he was not referred to by name or title and even though several of the incidents described had occurred prior to his assumption of office.

Unanimously, the Court reversed the lower court’s judgment for the plaintiff. To the contention that the First Amendment did not protect libelous publications,

the Court replied that constitutional scrutiny could not be foreclosed by the “label” attached to something. “Like . . . the various other formulae for the repression of expression that have been challenged in this Court, libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations.

It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment.”1009

“The general proposition,” the Court continued, “that freedom of expression upon public questions is secured by the First Amendment has long been settled by our decisions .... [W]e consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”1010

Because the advertisement was “an expression of grievance and protest on one of the major public issues of our time, [it] would seem clearly to qualify for the constitutional protection . . .

[unless] it forfeits that protection by the falsity of some of its factual statements and by its alleged defamation of respondent.”1011

Erroneous statement is protected, the Court asserted, there being no exception “for any test of truth.” Error is inevitable in any free debate and to place liability upon that score, and especially to place on the speaker the burden of proving truth, would introduce self-censorship and stifle the free expression which the First Amendment protects.

1012 Nor would injury to official reputation afford a warrant for repressing otherwise free speech. Public officials are subject to public scrutiny and “[c]riticism of their official conduct does not lose its constitutional protection merely because it is effective criticism and hence diminishes their official reputation.”1013

That neither factual error nor defamatory content could penetrate the protective circle of the First Amendment was the “lesson” to be drawn from the great debate over the Sedition Act of 1798, which the Court reviewed in some detail to discern the “central meaning of the First Amendment.”1014

Thus, it appears, the libel law under consideration failed the test of constitutionality because of its kinship with seditious libel, which violated the “central meaning of the First Amendment.”


“The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with ‘actual malice'—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”1015


http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-01/45-defamation.html

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 2 years ago

“The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with ‘actual malice'—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”1015

http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-01/45-defamation.html

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 2 years ago

DoD InspectorGeneral Verified account @DoD_IG

We provide independent, relevant & timely oversight of DoD that promotes accountability, integrity & efficiency. public.affairs@dodig.mil

DOD calls targets terrorist fails Impartiality of #US service pride #AshCarter public shame

http://occupywallst.org/forum/operation-inherited-resolve-dod-calls-its-tareget-/#comment-1065467

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33164) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

You would do better - if instead of bemoaning what they call their targets - that - you instead - went after them for killing innocent civilians caught in the blast - that killed the designated terrorist.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 2 years ago

Police Chief #AndreAnderson Tyrone Harris shot in #ferguson survives hail of bullets his testimony would help

BlacklivesMatter

alllivesmatter

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 2 years ago

Institutional Racism: "No troops on the ground" americans > others

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 2 years ago

Institutional Racism DOD calls its targets terrorist

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 2 years ago

Dick Van Dyke ‏@NadavRaz 4m4 minutes ago

@Matt_Holck @IHilgendorf @SarahKSilverman @nsa alright I'm done with this

Dick Van Dyke ‏@NadavRaz 4m4 minutes ago

@Matt_Holck @IHilgendorf @SarahKSilverman @nsa im confused what your saying, people that create terror should be called terrorists?

Dick Van Dyke ‏@NadavRaz 6m6 minutes ago

@Matt_Holck @IHilgendorf @SarahKSilverman @nsa because they're not real issues

Dick Van Dyke ‏@NadavRaz 6m6 minutes ago

@Matt_Holck @IHilgendorf @SarahKSilverman @nsa probably not, but I'm not interested in domestic terrorism and privacy invasion it's a bore

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 2 years ago

Anti-ISIL Airstrikes Continue in Syria, Iraq

From a Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve News Release

SOUTHWEST ASIA, Aug. 4, 2015 – U.S. and coalition military forces have continued to attack Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant terrorists in Syria and Iraq, Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve officials reported today.

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=129407

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 2 years ago

Report: U.S. airstrikes on Islamic State have killed 459 civilians Chicago Tribune-11 hours ago U.S.-led airstrikes targeting the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria have likely killed at least 459 civilians over the past year, a report

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 2 years ago

DOD race hate instigators, obstinate all targets terrorist again

Airstrikes Hit ISIL Terrorists in Syria, Iraq Department of Defense-9 hours ago SOUTHWEST ASIA, July 31, 2015 – U.S. and coalition military forces have continued to attack Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant terrorists in Syria and Iraq, ...

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 2 years ago

CIA low bids death count at 15,000 misrepresents kill radius

the same that lied about weapons of mass destruction to bomb Iraw in 2003

Over 15,000 Daesh militants killed by US airstrikes since 2014: CIA

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 2 years ago

U.S., Coalition Aircraft Continue Airstrikes Against ISIL

From a Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve News Release

SOUTHWEST ASIA, July 16, 2015 – U.S. and coalition military forces have continued to attack Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant terrorists in Syria and Iraq, Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve officials reported today.

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=129286

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 2 years ago

Jesse LaGreca ‏@JesseLaGreca 1h1 hour ago

The 1% has used racism, bigotry, xenophobia to divide and conquer us for decades. When that fails they are screwed. Good @CarlNyberg312

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 2 years ago

US, who drop bombs Resolve to drop more

U.S. Steps Up Airstrikes in Afghanistan, Even Targeting ISIS

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 2 years ago

Airstrikes Hit ISIL in Syria, Iraq

From a Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve News Release

SOUTHWEST ASIA, July 14, 2015 – U.S. and coalition military forces have continued to attack Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant terrorists in Syria and Iraq, Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve officials reported today.

Officials reported details of the latest strikes, noting that assessments of results are based on initial reports.

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=129273

[-] 0 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 2 years ago

DOD continues to call it's bombing campaign "operation" inherited resolve

and it's targets terrorist

http://www.officialwire.com/news/airstrikes-continue-in-iraq-syria-2/

Airstrikes Continue in Iraq, Syria Washington, D.C. (United States) (OFFICIAL WIRE) July 20, 2015 Leave a Comment

From a Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve News Release

SOUTHWEST ASIA, July 20, 2015 – U.S. and coalition military forces have continued to attack Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant terrorists in Syria and Iraq, Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve officials reported today.

[-] 0 points by Nevada1 (5843) 2 years ago

Obama Just Made A Shocking Admission https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcGz1a76Clk

[-] 2 points by grapes (4987) 2 years ago

I don't see why this can be shocking at all. The U.S. "trained" al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, too. As long as the U.S. is involved in the Middle East with its myriad political, socioeconomic, tribal, etc. fractures, yesterday's enemy becomes today's ally, and tomorrow's antagonist. Over there, even getting a "dog" does not ensure that it will not bite its master's throat because it is a wolf in dog's fur.

[-] 0 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 2 years ago

calliph

if we say what they want is a kingdom|

then they will accept a top down rule

[-] 0 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 2 years ago

MattHolck0 (2976) 1 hour ago

more scare tactics by the DOD

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article42395.htm

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (2976) 36 minutes ago

@thack86 9h MC1 favorited a Tweet you were mentioned in 16h: >@Matt_Holck @ConanOBrien I grew up a huge Carlin fan and was always skeptical of that part of his act. Now I'm not. RIP George, you live on

https://www.linkedin.com/in/thack86

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33164) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

You seem to be having a near impossible time of getting past the empty bitch and moan stage to actually getting on to forwarding something constructive.

So in an effort to help you forward some sort of anti-war action:

Drone warfare - end it - speak-up speak-out - get involved!


Meticulous researchers have documented that U.S. drones are killing many innocent civilians in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere. Drones are making the world less stable and creating new enemies. Their remoteness provides those responsible with a sense of immunity.

We're close to 100,000 signatures to ban weaponized drones. Add yours here.

Former Directors of National Intelligence Michael Flynn and Dennis Blair have called the drone wars counterproductive, as has an internal CIA report. Former Counter-Terrorism Adviser Michael Boyle agrees, as does former Vice-Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General James Cartwright, and former commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan General Stanley McChrystal.[1]

Thousands have been killed for no good reason, many of them civilians.[2] Weaponized drones are no more acceptable than land mines, cluster bombs, or chemical weapons. The world must renounce and forbid their manufacture, possession, or use. Violators must be held accountable.

The United States is moving in the wrong direction by marketing and selling weaponized drones to other nations.[3]

Click here to add your name to the cause of creating a global armed-drones ban.

The petition you'll be signing reads:

We, the undersigned organizations and individuals, urge

  • the United Nations Secretary General to investigate the concerns of Navi Pillay, the U.N.'s top human rights official, that drone attacks violate international law -- and to ultimately pursue sanctions against nations using, possessing, or manufacturing weaponized drones;
  • the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to investigate grounds for the criminal prosecution of those responsible for drone attacks;
  • the U.S. Secretary of State, and the ambassadors to the United States from the nations of the world, to support a treaty forbidding the possession or use of weaponized drones; President Barack Obama, to abandon the use of weaponized drones, and to abandon his "kill list" program regardless of the technology employed;
  • the Majority and Minority Leaders of the U.S. House and Senate, to ban the use or sale of weaponized drones.
  • the governments of each of our nations around the world, to ban the use or sale of weaponized drones.

Click here to sign, as have the following organizations:

Alaskans For Peace and Justice

Antiwar.com

Arlington Green Party

Association of Roman Catholic Women Priests

BFUU

Bill of Rights Defense Committee

Bloomington Peace Action Coalition

Brave New Foundation

Campaign for the Accountability of American Bases

Charlottesville Center for Peace and Justice

Christians for Peace and Justice in the Middle East

Coalition for Grassroots Progress

Code Pink

Drone Free Zone

Evanston Neighbors for Peace

Fellowship of Reconciliation

Fresno Center for Nonviolence

Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space

Granny Peace Brigade-NY

Hoosiers for Peace and Justice

Indiana Anti-Drone Project

Interfaith Communities United for Justice and Peace

Jeannette Rankin Peace Center

KnowDrones.com

LA Laborfest

Montrose Peace Vigil

National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance

Nevada Desert Experience

No Drones Network

The Northampton Committee to Stop War

Office of the Americas

On Earth Peace

Peace Fresno

Peace Madera

Peace of Mind Project

People United for Peace of Santa Cruz County (PUP)

Progressive Democrats of America

Project Peacemakers

Quaker House

RootsAction.org

Rutherford Institute

Saint Lucy's Justice and Peace Committee

Santa Cruz Against Drones (SCAD)

Simple Gifts Inc.

Sitkans for Peace and Justice

Sustainable Action Network

United for Peace and Justice

United National Antiwar Coalition

Veracity Now

Veterans For Peace

Veterans For Peace Chapter 10

Veterans For Peace Chapter 14

Veterans For Peace Chapter 27

Veterans For Peace Chapter 91

Veterans For Peace Chapter 154

Veterans For Peace, Phil Berrigan Memorial Chapter, Baltimore, MD

Voices for Creative Nonviolence

WarIsACrime.org

War Resisters League

Wasatch Coalition for Peace and Justice

West Suburban Faith-based Peace Coalition

Women Against Military Madness (WAMM)

Women Standing

Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, U.S. Section

World Can't Wait

Yorkshire Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament

After signing the petition, please forward this message to your friends. You can also share it from the webpage after taking the action yourself.

This work is only possible with your financial support. Please chip in $3 now.

-- The RootsAction.org Team

P.S. RootsAction is an independent online force endorsed by Jim Hightower, Barbara Ehrenreich, Cornel West, Daniel Ellsberg, Glenn Greenwald, Naomi Klein, Bill Fletcher Jr., Laura Flanders, former U.S. Senator James Abourezk, Coleen Rowley, Frances Fox Piven, Lila Garrett, Phil Donahue, Sonali Kolhatkar, and many others.

Footnotes:

  1. "Even the Warriors Say the Wars Make Us Less Safe," War Is A Crime.

  2. "Get the Data: Drone Wars," Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

  3. Missy Ryan, "Obama administration to allow sales of armed drones to allies," Washington Post, February 17, 2015.

www.RootsAction.org

[-] 0 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 2 years ago

DOD humans capable of air and artillery strikes

just don't consider the targets humans