You obviously don't understand what you read. The evidence wasn't thrown out on Constitutional grounds but based on statutory law, the Posse Comitatus Act.
This is the relevant part you missed:
Writing in dissent, Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain noted with apparent regret that the majority was the first ever to apply the "exclusionary rule" to violations of the Posse Comitatus Act.
Excluding evidence under the rule should be a "last resort" and done only after consideration of the "social costs," he argued.
"Yet, in a breathtaking assertion of judicial power, today's majority invokes this disfavored remedy for the benefit of a convicted child pornographer," O"Scannlain wrote. "It does so without any demonstrated need to deter future violations of the PCA and without any consideration
----
Please stop just making shit up in order to twist a story into fitting your political agenda.
I have just demonstrated that isn't the case. Now can I ask you to do the same?
Part of the problem in these discussion is that so many people rely upon their "common sense," intuition, or psychic abilities to reveal what the law says. Unsurprisingly they often get it wrong, especially on matters of Constitutional law.
What is the topic of this story? - "Is There a Creativity Deficit In Science?" What was the example given? - ""There’s a current problem in biomedical research" What did I post about? - Biomedical research, climate science, space science, unresolved issues, and funding allocation to explore breakthroughs or theories that might help get past those issues.
That was entirely a discussion of matters related to science. You're the one trying to drag politics into this.
Under American law the military is extremely limited in the circumstances in which they can engage in law enforcement of ordinary criminal law against civilians. The evidence was thrown out because a military investigator found the material, not because it was an unconstitutional search. Quoting the 4th Amendment doesn't change that.
On the other hand you can't be relied upon to read the thread. Here is what he posted:
I didn't suggest that the entire state of Washington should be under surveillance. I only commented on the application of "scum" as applying to child molesters,
Distinction without a difference.
That's a load of crap, and you are here to fortify it. Tell me "king neckbeard," is it insufferable to call child molesters "scum," or does that mean a military coup in the morning??
Do you have the mental agility to acknowledge that the child molesters are scum and government investigators shouldn't go outside their jurisdiction could both be true? Is there something contradictory in that???
I'm already starting to brace myself for your next insightful, on-topic post.
Yes, you are trying to be "funny." This isn't a matter of Constitutional law but ordinary statutory law passed by Congress. They don't need to pass a Constitutional amendment to change an ordinary law.
Now, on behalf of Mr Mencken, and all those who fight for human freedom, allow me to suggest you fuck off, and to remind you that just because there are a few scummy characters in the world, it still doesn't justify putting the entire state of Washington under surveillance, which is what happened here.
That is a straw man, I didn't suggest that the entire state of Washington should be under surveillance. I only commented on the application of "scum" as applying to child molesters, and that the investigator exceeded his jurisdiction. (Don't you agree with that?) So, kindly take your "suggestion" and apply it to yourself.
By the way, do you think you could find some evidence that Mencken would be ok with child molesters? Or do you think he might lean towards the sentiment expressed in another of his famous quotes?
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats. -- H. L. Mencken
his state of belief on "a universe created and watched over" by fairies. Oh look, the 'and' refers to the actions of the fucking fairies.
The actual phrase is:
I don't believe that the universe was createdand iswatched over by an infinite number of tiny, invisible fairies.
He isn't stating that the universe was created by fairies as you imply. There are two things in that phrase that he doesn't believe in: 1) That the universe was created 2) (the universe is) watched over by an infinite number of tiny, invisible fairies.
Which still don't appear to exist.
A tedious straw man, nobody here is claiming that they do.
No you aren't "bucking for the Constitution of the United States." The case is based on statutory law, not Constitutional rights. The Posse Comitatus Act is an ordinary law passed by Congress. That can change it or undo it if they care to.
The court is addressing the activity of a military investigator stepping out of bounds.
May have stepped out of bounds, may have. The trial judge didn't think so. I'm not sure that is clear yet that he did despite the fact that there has been an initial appellate decision. There are still two more stages of appeal (appeals court en bloc, Supreme Court) that could come and either could reverse the decision. Since this was apparently the first time that such a standard as been applied there may be reasonable doubt about the outcome. Congress could act to allow evidence in cases like this. In either case it is a question of public policy, not Constitutional law or rights.
Consider this - suppose the investigator was looking for a fleeing prisoner and used binoculars to search as he traveled through the city. While engaged in that search he saw a robbery in progress through the binoculars and called the city police to make the arrest. Would he have violated the law by making that search? Should there be a legal difference between searches by photon versus those by electron?
The criminals here worthy of being described as scum and deserving confinement are the people involved in child pornography, not the investigator. At worst he seems to have exceeded his statutory jurisdiction in pursuit of actual crimes.
Looks like the basis was the Posse Comitatus Act rather than an actual constitutional issue. Hard to say how this will play out over time. The Supreme Court could go either way, or Congress could act to allow it if they so choose.
Writing in dissent, Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain noted with apparent regret that the majority was the first ever to apply the "exclusionary rule" to violations of the Posse Comitatus Act.
Excluding evidence under the rule should be a "last resort" and done only after consideration of the "social costs," he argued.
"Yet, in a breathtaking assertion of judicial power, today's majority invokes this disfavored remedy for the benefit of a convicted child pornographer," O"Scannlain wrote. "It does so without any demonstrated need to deter future violations of the PCA and without any consideration of the 'substantial social costs' associated with the exclusionary rule."
I wonder if legally speaking this would even be an issue if the Coast Guard was doing it? The Coast Guard is considered law enforcement unless acting under the direction of the Navy in wartime.
Oh wait. Yeah, I can live with the 1/10,000 chance because THOSE THINGS NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPEN EXCEPT IN YOUR IMAGINATION.
Your imagination is failing you. The rate of violent crime isn't 1/10,000, it is nearly 40/10,000 according to the FBI (actually: 386.9 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in 2012 ), which adds up to well over a million incidents in a country of 300,000,000 people. Also keep in mind that the distribution isn't even - your neighborhood may be safe, but those of other people aren't. Should they be denied the ability to defend themselves just because you think you're safe?
Or do you think the "liberal media" is covering up the hundreds of thousands of people who use guns to prevent themselves from being stabbed in our (incredibly safe) country every day?
Defensive gun use tends to be a local story only, and seldom makes the national news. And they certainly happen. But who do you think is aggregating the stories to report on a national level on a regular basis? Is someone doing that for bowling scores too? (Last night there were 37 perfect games bowled in the US.) Do you think we'll start seeing daily reports of aggregate number of either robberies in the US, or defensive use of firearms like the media likes to do with wars in a totally neutral manner? (Yet another grim milestone was reached yesterday when 3 American soldiers were killed in ______ brining the total to _______.)
Because of the clear implication for gun control laws, a number of criminologists have prepared studies of defensive gun use incidence over the years—with startlingly different results. The most widely known is the study by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, completed in the 1990s, when violent crime rates were higher than they are today. That study found that there were somewhere between 830,000 and 2.45 million defensive gun uses per year in the United States.1
Another prominent study was the federal government’s National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which also asked if victims of crimes had used a gun in self-defense. That study found that there were about 108,000 defensive gun uses per year.2 The National Survey of Private Ownership of Firearms (NSPOF) was performed in 1994. It was conducted partly because of widespread skepticism about the number of defensive gun uses reported in the Kleck and Gertz study. Still, the NSPOF study found approximately 1.5 million defensive gun uses.3
Apparently you're the one that fails reading comprehension. He stated that there are two things he disbelieves in, hence the word "and." If he only disbelieved in angels or "fairies" or whatever he would have simply written, "I don't believe that an infinite number of tiny, invisible fairies watching over us exist." Of course that is a bit of a straw man on his part since who actually believes that?
So to answer your question, I don't believe that any Catholic priest has proposed a big bang theory involving fairies, infinite or otherwise. That theory appears to have been developed yesterday by DexterIsADog as a straw man. But the actual big bang theory was developed by Father Georges-Henri Lemaitre in 1927, and he apparently doesn't believe in that either.
But at least I based it off something you actually said/did, rather than invent something.
Simple question - did he or did he not write the following?
I don't believe that the universe was created...
He did write it. The rest of that sentence doesn't really alter that statement, but discusses a new topic. So, I didn't actually "invent something," did I?
Do you work for Fox News?
It's a pity you didn't rise to the level of Fox News, at least they generally manage to get simple matters like identifying quotes right.
Don't worry though, this article discusses a resource to help you become better informed as noted in this survey.
So you reject the scientific theory which so far seems to have by far the best track record in explaining the universe, the "Big Bang" theory? Is that because it was proposed by a Catholic priest?
On another topic, what do you think is the explanation for the Jews? How do you think they managed to survive for more than 4,000 years as a people with a common identity despite multiple deportations to far off foreign lands, pogroms, and even attempted genocide, only to reassemble in their native land and reform the country of Israel after being nonexistent for 2,000 years? Are there other examples of a similar nature that you can think of? How do you suppose that is?
This struggle will go on until they run out of oil. Then we won't care, and stop meddling in their internal affairs.
The struggle will go on for a very long time since the goal of the Islamist extremists is to install Islamist governments and Sharia law in their countries, retake areas formerly ruled by Muslims, such as Spain, and complete the conquest of the world. The conflict will last much longer since Western Europe is settling large numbers of Muslims into Europe where they are becoming radicalized. The conflict will ultimately spread to Europe where it will become a significant problem in the decades to come. This isn't about us, it is about them.
No, you claimed (1) that they were 'armed' by the United Soviet Republics,....
No, I stated that they were primarily armed by the Soviet bloc, and that is correct.
(2) on ideological grounds (as in Baathists are socialists). Nice to see you're shifting to 'oh, it was pure business' line after I pointed out how ignorant you are.
Is that what you think? Then you managed to get it wrong, including getting your own claim wrong.
You see this? -
However, that still doesn't make Saddam Hussein a part of the Soviet bloc, no matter how you dislike this stubborn fact.
Saddam was never under Soviet control, was never part of the Soviet bloc. It was a Soviet client state, and the Soviets did arm them.
Besides, you have still not addressed the bulk of my point, namely that:Saint Ronnie financed them during the war and specifically to fight the war to the tune of a cool few hundred millions. Which kind of dispenses with your "The God-Blessed Umerrikah didn't arm them" lie.
And we return to your being unable to keep my factual statement straight - the Iraqis were mainly armed by the bloc of nations controlled by the Soviets. That doesn't rule out American involvement. (You do understand that, right?) You seem to be getting wrapped around the axel about the approximately 1% of armaments or support Iraq received from the US. Big deal.
Sure. With a little help from his Western friends.
Saddam made his own decision to attack Iran. Western aid came long after the fact. You are trying to twist the history.
You seem to be about as stupid as you're arrogant.
Well if that's true, then it is a vice we both share.
The "substance" of your argument was "US wasn't arming Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war",
The substance of my argument was that Iraq was primarily armed by the Soviet bloc, a fact you keep getting wrong.
. Of course, being a lying bastard of the PNAC ideology and the Lenin methods, you simply ignored it.
Look, either the weapons aren't that precise, and we're hitting weddings and whatnot by accident, or we're doing it on purpose, and waging a war of terror, not on it.
The weapons mostly much hit what is aimed at, but they do miss on occasion. And a Taliban guerilla group moving cross country at night and part of an Afghan clan moving cross country at night to attend a wedding may appear similar, and both will be armed. Yes, there have been some mistakes made - note: mistakes - in targeting them. But by the same token the Taliban has claimed on more than one occasion that a guerilla group of theirs that was attacked was really a wedding party. In other words, the Taliban lied. You should be including that as part of your evaluation, especially since I although I may be mistaken I seem to recall that you regularly accuse the US or its associates of lying about this or that but I somewhat doubt that lying by the Taliban is something you consider.
Also don't overlook the fact that the US often compensates victims or families of mistaken attacks.
The American "War on Terror" is Terror. It's an ongoing campaign of fear waged against everyone outside the auspices of the USA MIC.
Nonsense. The US is in an armed struggle with armed militant Islamist extremists trying to overthrow governments, attack Westerners, fellow Muslims, and targets of opportunity to gain control over more territory and impose their harsh version of Sharia law. That is a pretty small population. The US has no conflict with Belgian farmers, Mexican factory workers, French doctors, Italian bakers, Turkish journalists, Jordanian date farmers, miners in Nigeria, or a vast number of other people.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately what we tend to get is idiocy in the defense of liberty, and indifference to the pursuit of knowledge and wisdom.
Many people on Slashdot would undue the Republic if they could, even though for many of them it would be by accident.
I find no small irony in you quoting Barry Goldwater.
You obviously don't understand what you read. The evidence wasn't thrown out on Constitutional grounds but based on statutory law, the Posse Comitatus Act.
This is the relevant part you missed:
Writing in dissent, Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain noted with apparent regret that the majority was the first ever to apply the "exclusionary rule" to violations of the Posse Comitatus Act.
Excluding evidence under the rule should be a "last resort" and done only after consideration of the "social costs," he argued.
"Yet, in a breathtaking assertion of judicial power, today's majority invokes this disfavored remedy for the benefit of a convicted child pornographer," O"Scannlain wrote. "It does so without any demonstrated need to deter future violations of the PCA and without any consideration
----
Please stop just making shit up in order to twist a story into fitting your political agenda.
I have just demonstrated that isn't the case. Now can I ask you to do the same?
Part of the problem in these discussion is that so many people rely upon their "common sense," intuition, or psychic abilities to reveal what the law says. Unsurprisingly they often get it wrong, especially on matters of Constitutional law.
What is the topic of this story? - "Is There a Creativity Deficit In Science?"
What was the example given? - ""There’s a current problem in biomedical research"
What did I post about? - Biomedical research, climate science, space science, unresolved issues, and funding allocation to explore breakthroughs or theories that might help get past those issues.
That was entirely a discussion of matters related to science. You're the one trying to drag politics into this.
It would be great if you could simply stick to the real Constitution instead of making up crap.
But I see crap is popular content, so I guess that hope is forlorn.
Under American law the military is extremely limited in the circumstances in which they can engage in law enforcement of ordinary criminal law against civilians. The evidence was thrown out because a military investigator found the material, not because it was an unconstitutional search. Quoting the 4th Amendment doesn't change that.
On the other hand you can't be relied upon to read the thread. Here is what he posted:
I didn't suggest that the entire state of Washington should be under surveillance. I only commented on the application of "scum" as applying to child molesters,
Distinction without a difference.
That's a load of crap, and you are here to fortify it. Tell me "king neckbeard," is it insufferable to call child molesters "scum," or does that mean a military coup in the morning??
Do you have the mental agility to acknowledge that the child molesters are scum and government investigators shouldn't go outside their jurisdiction could both be true? Is there something contradictory in that???
I'm already starting to brace myself for your next insightful, on-topic post.
Could you provide a perspective on something that actually happened? Where is the 4th Amendment violation?
An "adult"? Are you speaking from experience? It appears that not just any adult will do. I suggest you try a tutor next time.
Disagreeing with one crime is no excuse for agreeing with another.
If you trouble yourself to read what I wrote you'll see that I didn't. But straw men arguments are the way of Slashdot, aren't they?
Yes, you are trying to be "funny." This isn't a matter of Constitutional law but ordinary statutory law passed by Congress. They don't need to pass a Constitutional amendment to change an ordinary law.
Now, on behalf of Mr Mencken, and all those who fight for human freedom, allow me to suggest you fuck off, and to remind you that just because there are a few scummy characters in the world, it still doesn't justify putting the entire state of Washington under surveillance, which is what happened here.
That is a straw man, I didn't suggest that the entire state of Washington should be under surveillance. I only commented on the application of "scum" as applying to child molesters, and that the investigator exceeded his jurisdiction. (Don't you agree with that?) So, kindly take your "suggestion" and apply it to yourself.
By the way, do you think you could find some evidence that Mencken would be ok with child molesters? Or do you think he might lean towards the sentiment expressed in another of his famous quotes?
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats. -- H. L. Mencken
Don't be a putz.
his state of belief on "a universe created and watched over" by fairies. Oh look, the 'and' refers to the actions of the fucking fairies.
The actual phrase is:
I don't believe that the universe was created and is watched over by an infinite number of tiny, invisible fairies.
He isn't stating that the universe was created by fairies as you imply. There are two things in that phrase that he doesn't believe in:
1) That the universe was created
2) (the universe is) watched over by an infinite number of tiny, invisible fairies.
Which still don't appear to exist.
A tedious straw man, nobody here is claiming that they do.
Information may "want to be free," but some people will still try to hide the truth.
No you aren't "bucking for the Constitution of the United States." The case is based on statutory law, not Constitutional rights. The Posse Comitatus Act is an ordinary law passed by Congress. That can change it or undo it if they care to.
The court is addressing the activity of a military investigator stepping out of bounds.
May have stepped out of bounds, may have. The trial judge didn't think so. I'm not sure that is clear yet that he did despite the fact that there has been an initial appellate decision. There are still two more stages of appeal (appeals court en bloc, Supreme Court) that could come and either could reverse the decision. Since this was apparently the first time that such a standard as been applied there may be reasonable doubt about the outcome. Congress could act to allow evidence in cases like this. In either case it is a question of public policy, not Constitutional law or rights.
Consider this - suppose the investigator was looking for a fleeing prisoner and used binoculars to search as he traveled through the city. While engaged in that search he saw a robbery in progress through the binoculars and called the city police to make the arrest. Would he have violated the law by making that search? Should there be a legal difference between searches by photon versus those by electron?
You must be bucking for a promotion to major.
The criminals here worthy of being described as scum and deserving confinement are the people involved in child pornography, not the investigator. At worst he seems to have exceeded his statutory jurisdiction in pursuit of actual crimes.
Looks like the basis was the Posse Comitatus Act rather than an actual constitutional issue. Hard to say how this will play out over time. The Supreme Court could go either way, or Congress could act to allow it if they so choose.
Navy Guilty of Illegally Broad Online Searches
Writing in dissent, Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain noted with apparent regret that the majority was the first ever to apply the "exclusionary rule" to violations of the Posse Comitatus Act.
Excluding evidence under the rule should be a "last resort" and done only after consideration of the "social costs," he argued.
"Yet, in a breathtaking assertion of judicial power, today's majority invokes this disfavored remedy for the benefit of a convicted child pornographer," O"Scannlain wrote. "It does so without any demonstrated need to deter future violations of the PCA and without any consideration of the 'substantial social costs' associated with the exclusionary rule."
I wonder if legally speaking this would even be an issue if the Coast Guard was doing it? The Coast Guard is considered law enforcement unless acting under the direction of the Navy in wartime.
Oh wait. Yeah, I can live with the 1/10,000 chance because THOSE THINGS NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPEN EXCEPT IN YOUR IMAGINATION.
Your imagination is failing you. The rate of violent crime isn't 1/10,000, it is nearly 40/10,000 according to the FBI (actually: 386.9 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in 2012 ), which adds up to well over a million incidents in a country of 300,000,000 people. Also keep in mind that the distribution isn't even - your neighborhood may be safe, but those of other people aren't. Should they be denied the ability to defend themselves just because you think you're safe?
Or do you think the "liberal media" is covering up the hundreds of thousands of people who use guns to prevent themselves from being stabbed in our (incredibly safe) country every day?
Defensive gun use tends to be a local story only, and seldom makes the national news. And they certainly happen. But who do you think is aggregating the stories to report on a national level on a regular basis? Is someone doing that for bowling scores too? (Last night there were 37 perfect games bowled in the US.) Do you think we'll start seeing daily reports of aggregate number of either robberies in the US, or defensive use of firearms like the media likes to do with wars in a totally neutral manner? (Yet another grim milestone was reached yesterday when 3 American soldiers were killed in ______ brining the total to _______.)
Tough Targets: When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens (pdf of just the paper)
Because of the clear implication for gun control laws, a number of criminologists have prepared studies of defensive gun use incidence over the years—with startlingly different results. The most widely known is the study by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, completed in the 1990s, when violent crime rates were higher than they are today. That study found that there were somewhere between 830,000 and 2.45 million defensive gun uses per year in the United States.1
Another prominent study was the federal government’s National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which also asked if victims of crimes had used a gun in self-defense. That study found that there were about 108,000 defensive gun uses per year.2 The National Survey of Private Ownership of Firearms (NSPOF) was performed in 1994. It was conducted partly because of widespread skepticism about the number of defensive gun uses reported in the Kleck and Gertz study. Still, the NSPOF study found approximately 1.5 million defensive gun uses.3
Apparently you're the one that fails reading comprehension. He stated that there are two things he disbelieves in, hence the word "and." If he only disbelieved in angels or "fairies" or whatever he would have simply written, "I don't believe that an infinite number of tiny, invisible fairies watching over us exist." Of course that is a bit of a straw man on his part since who actually believes that?
So to answer your question, I don't believe that any Catholic priest has proposed a big bang theory involving fairies, infinite or otherwise. That theory appears to have been developed yesterday by DexterIsADog as a straw man. But the actual big bang theory was developed by Father Georges-Henri Lemaitre in 1927, and he apparently doesn't believe in that either.
But at least I based it off something you actually said/did, rather than invent something.
Simple question - did he or did he not write the following?
I don't believe that the universe was created ...
He did write it. The rest of that sentence doesn't really alter that statement, but discusses a new topic. So, I didn't actually "invent something," did I?
Do you work for Fox News?
It's a pity you didn't rise to the level of Fox News, at least they generally manage to get simple matters like identifying quotes right.
Don't worry though, this article discusses a resource to help you become better informed as noted in this survey.
I don't believe that the universe was created ...
So you reject the scientific theory which so far seems to have by far the best track record in explaining the universe, the "Big Bang" theory? Is that because it was proposed by a Catholic priest?
On another topic, what do you think is the explanation for the Jews? How do you think they managed to survive for more than 4,000 years as a people with a common identity despite multiple deportations to far off foreign lands, pogroms, and even attempted genocide, only to reassemble in their native land and reform the country of Israel after being nonexistent for 2,000 years? Are there other examples of a similar nature that you can think of? How do you suppose that is?
Talk about the tail wagging the dog.
This struggle will go on until they run out of oil. Then we won't care, and stop meddling in their internal affairs.
The struggle will go on for a very long time since the goal of the Islamist extremists is to install Islamist governments and Sharia law in their countries, retake areas formerly ruled by Muslims, such as Spain, and complete the conquest of the world. The conflict will last much longer since Western Europe is settling large numbers of Muslims into Europe where they are becoming radicalized. The conflict will ultimately spread to Europe where it will become a significant problem in the decades to come. This isn't about us, it is about them.
No, you claimed (1) that they were 'armed' by the United Soviet Republics, ....
No, I stated that they were primarily armed by the Soviet bloc, and that is correct.
(2) on ideological grounds (as in Baathists are socialists). Nice to see you're shifting to 'oh, it was pure business' line after I pointed out how ignorant you are.
Is that what you think? Then you managed to get it wrong, including getting your own claim wrong.
You see this? -
However, that still doesn't make Saddam Hussein a part of the Soviet bloc, no matter how you dislike this stubborn fact.
Saddam was never under Soviet control, was never part of the Soviet bloc. It was a Soviet client state, and the Soviets did arm them.
Besides, you have still not addressed the bulk of my point, namely that:Saint Ronnie financed them during the war and specifically to fight the war to the tune of a cool few hundred millions. Which kind of dispenses with your "The God-Blessed Umerrikah didn't arm them" lie.
And we return to your being unable to keep my factual statement straight - the Iraqis were mainly armed by the bloc of nations controlled by the Soviets. That doesn't rule out American involvement. (You do understand that, right?) You seem to be getting wrapped around the axel about the approximately 1% of armaments or support Iraq received from the US. Big deal.
Sure. With a little help from his Western friends.
Saddam made his own decision to attack Iran. Western aid came long after the fact. You are trying to twist the history.
You seem to be about as stupid as you're arrogant.
Well if that's true, then it is a vice we both share.
The "substance" of your argument was "US wasn't arming Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war",
The substance of my argument was that Iraq was primarily armed by the Soviet bloc, a fact you keep getting wrong.
. Of course, being a lying bastard of the PNAC ideology and the Lenin methods, you simply ignored it.
You seem to be projecting.
Look, either the weapons aren't that precise, and we're hitting weddings and whatnot by accident, or we're doing it on purpose, and waging a war of terror, not on it.
The weapons mostly much hit what is aimed at, but they do miss on occasion. And a Taliban guerilla group moving cross country at night and part of an Afghan clan moving cross country at night to attend a wedding may appear similar, and both will be armed. Yes, there have been some mistakes made - note: mistakes - in targeting them. But by the same token the Taliban has claimed on more than one occasion that a guerilla group of theirs that was attacked was really a wedding party. In other words, the Taliban lied. You should be including that as part of your evaluation, especially since I although I may be mistaken I seem to recall that you regularly accuse the US or its associates of lying about this or that but I somewhat doubt that lying by the Taliban is something you consider.
Also don't overlook the fact that the US often compensates victims or families of mistaken attacks.
The American "War on Terror" is Terror. It's an ongoing campaign of fear waged against everyone outside the auspices of the USA MIC.
Nonsense. The US is in an armed struggle with armed militant Islamist extremists trying to overthrow governments, attack Westerners, fellow Muslims, and targets of opportunity to gain control over more territory and impose their harsh version of Sharia law. That is a pretty small population. The US has no conflict with Belgian farmers, Mexican factory workers, French doctors, Italian bakers, Turkish journalists, Jordanian date farmers, miners in Nigeria, or a vast number of other people.