Drone Strikes: Obama's Secret War

[Jack Springer]

The NYT takes a rare opportunity to talk about Obama and his secret drone war.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/06/wo...ards.html?_r=0

Late last August, a 40-year-old cleric named Salem Ahmed bin Ali Jaber stood up to deliver a speech denouncing Al Qaeda in a village mosque in far eastern Yemen.


It was a brave gesture by a father of seven who commanded great respect in the community, and it did not go unnoticed. Two days later, three members of Al Qaeda came to the mosque in the tiny village of Khashamir after 9 p.m., saying they merely wanted to talk. Mr. Jaber agreed to meet them, bringing his cousin Waleed Abdullah, a police officer, for protection.

As the five men stood arguing by a cluster of palm trees, a volley of remotely operated American missiles shot down from the night sky and incinerated them all, along with a camel that was tied up nearby.

Recently, the public -- well, the public that is still interested in truth - found out that the Obama Administration has no reservations about killing American citizens and innocent abroad without a fair trail or any of the rights given to Americans for a couple of centuries.

Bush invented Gitmo to house terrorists -- Obama just kills them and anyone else who might be in the way ... including American citizens.

Anyone who has taken the time to read my posts know that I am very much against the proliferation of drones. You could call drones "super assault rifles" that possess the ability to target anyone anywhere. We as a nation will one day regret embracing these horrible vehicles of death.

Terrorists will soon have the ability to deliver dirty bombs, assassinate politicians and businessmen, move drugs and weapons around, and invade our personal lives.

Remember when the press was so upset about Bush using wiretaps to listen to phone calls from suspected terrorist -- today, Obama just kills people with the support of the media and adulation of his supporters.

I'll use a word many of the CEP lib's use -- FAUX OUTRAGE

If you really believe in civil rights -- you'd be opposed to the escalation of drones as the new method of fighting and killing.

This is also an On-Topic thread.

[GiancarloC]

THis has been gone over time and time again. The faux outrage is nice, this has nothing to do with civil rights... the right wing is all about some civil rights but when it comes to others... forget about it.

And Obama's administration has done a better job at combating terrorism than the prior one. All the red herrings won't change that fact. Thanks for the nonsensical argument.

[xbuzzerx]

The NYT takes a rare opportunity to talk about Obama and his secret drone war.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/06/wo...ards.html?_r=0





Recently, the public -- well, the public that is still interested in truth - found out that the Obama Administration has no reservations about killing American citizens and innocent abroad without a fair trail or any of the rights given to Americans for a couple of centuries.

Bush invented Gitmo to house terrorists -- Obama just kills them and anyone else who might be in the way ... including American citizens.

Anyone who has taken the time to read my posts know that I am very much against the proliferation of drones. You could call drones "super assault rifles" that possess the ability to target anyone anywhere. We as a nation will one day regret embracing these horrible vehicles of death.

Terrorists will soon have the ability to deliver dirty bombs, assassinate politicians and businessmen, move drugs and weapons around, and invade our personal lives.

Remember when the press was so upset about Bush using wiretaps to listen to phone calls from suspected terrorist -- today, Obama just kills people with the support of the media and adulation of his supporters.

I'll use a word many of the CEP lib's use -- FAUX OUTRAGE

If you really believe in civil rights -- you'd be opposed to the escalation of drones as the new method of fighting and killing.

This is also an On-Topic thread.

Jack, seriously, do you have serious cause to believe this method kills more innocent bystanders or is being used more unethically than black ops or airstrikes or troops on the ground?

I'm sorry but given the enormous attitude of "who cares, they're all our enemies, they're all terrorists who hate us" that completely underlined the defense of literally everything the Bush Administration did in Iraq, I find the outrage over this use of drones to be beyond credibility.

[HenryReardon]

[
THis has been gone over time and time again. The faux outrage is nice, this has nothing to do with civil rights... the right wing is all about some civil rights but when it comes to others... forget about it.

.

Over and over again. Really? Didn't the administration mouthpiece just admit to the policy in the last two or three days?

The Bush administration used waterboading on three terrorists and the liberal world went crazy.
Obama announces that he's killing Americans and it's 'ho hum, business as ususal'.

The word hypocrisy seems to apply.

[loki81]

it's appalling the lengths that the right-wing spin machine will go to in order to criticize the President.

it was disturbing to see the twisted logic of the administration’s lawyers laid out in black and white. It had the air of a legal justification written after the fact for a policy decision that had already been made, and it brought back unwelcome memories of memos written for President George W. Bush to justify illegal wiretapping, indefinite detention, kidnapping, abuse and torture...

The white paper “is a confusing blend of self-defense and law of war concepts and doesn’t clearly explain whether there is a different standard for killing a senior Al Qaeda leader depending on whether he is a citizen,” said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies. “Its due process analysis is especially weak.”

The memo could and should have been released months ago. The administration could and should have provided a select number of lawmakers with the specifics on the killing of Mr. Awlaki and his son. The president could and should have acknowledged that decision and explained it.

who can take Conservative mouth-pieces like the ACLU seriously when they're obviously just dittoheads repeating whatever they heard on Rush in order to criticize the black guy?

[GiancarloC]

Over and over again. Really? Didn't the administration mouthpiece just admit to the policy in the last two or three days?

The Bush administration used waterboading on three terrorists and the liberal world went crazy.
Obama announces that he's killing Americans and it's 'ho hum, business as ususal'.

The word hypocrisy seems to apply.

Thanks for all the unsupported claims and comparing apples to oranges. I guess when the right wing does something against terrorism it's patriotism, but if Obama does he's overstepping his boundaries.

And it doesn't surprise me we have the other supposedly neutral, cynical one now ranting.

Anyone wants real hypocrisy? Look at the right wingers masquerading as those who are neutral and having their faux outrage!

[xbuzzerx]

it's appalling the lengths that the right-wing spin machine will go to in order to criticize the President.



who can take Conservative mouth-pieces like the ACLU seriously when they're obviously just dittoheads repeating whatever they heard on Rush in order to criticize the black guy?

Mmhmm Loki. The drive behind this criticism most certainly is worry and concern for people born in the U.S. who are working overseas as members of terrorist organizations that have committed acts of mass destruction against us in recent years. I'm sure.

[GiancarloC]

Mmhmm Loki. The drive behind this criticism most certainly is worry and concern for people born in the U.S. who are working overseas as members of terrorist organizations that have committed acts of mass destruction against us in recent years. I'm sure.

Don't mind that argument... it's just one who likes to drum up some outrage using articles that don't even support his argument.

[mitchymo]

Over and over again. Really? Didn't the administration mouthpiece just admit to the policy in the last two or three days?

The Bush administration used waterboading on three terrorists and the liberal world went crazy.
Obama announces that he's killing American traitors and it's 'ho hum, business as ususal'.

The word hypocrisy seems to apply.

There, that's better.

[xbuzzerx]

Apparently since it needs to be spelled out: working with and as a member of a terrorist organization seeking to plan terrorist attacks against the U.S. makes you an enemy of the people of the U.S. regardless of your nation of birth. This outrage is as ridiculous as saying it was simply horrible that we didn't consider the feelings of the government of Saudi Arabia when we killed Saudi nationals in our airstrikes on the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan.

Approving waterboarding as an acceptable, legalized form of torture to be used on prisoners has ramifications far beyond "protecting terrorists."

If I'm overseas working with the group responsible for attacking the World Trade Center willingly I'm pretty stupid thinking that my birth as an American citizen will shield me from a strike on a terrorist location overseas. And I'm pretty sure they DON'T think it. Luckily there's morons here who as long as it's a cowardly way to criticize the current President (despite their wholesale justification of everything George W. Bush sanctioned against international law) will do the job for them.

[Jack Springer]

THis has been gone over time and time again. The faux outrage is nice, this has nothing to do with civil rights... the right wing is all about some civil rights but when it comes to others... forget about it.

And Obama's administration has done a better job at combating terrorism than the prior one. All the red herrings won't change that fact. Thanks for the nonsensical argument.

Civil rights are only for select Americans?

What kind of liberal are you?

[FuryOfFirestorm]

When GWB was bombing the crap out of civilians, Republicans just shrugged their shoulders and called it "collateral damage".

When Obama uses drones to kill enemy targets and reduce civilian casualties to a minimum, Republicans are foaming at the mouth getting their jimmies rustled.

I guess they still can't get over the fact that Obama had Bin Laden put down halfway through his first term, while Bush II couldn't even locate him after 2 terms.

[Jack Springer]

Apparently since it needs to be spelled out: working with and as a member of a terrorist organization seeking to plan terrorist attacks against the U.S. makes you an enemy of the people of the U.S. regardless of your nation of birth. This outrage is as ridiculous as saying it was simply horrible that we didn't consider the feelings of the government of Saudi Arabia when we killed Saudi nationals in our airstrikes on the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan.

Approving waterboarding as an acceptable, legalized form of torture to be used on prisoners has ramifications far beyond "protecting terrorists."

If I'm overseas working with the group responsible for attacking the World Trade Center willingly I'm pretty stupid thinking that my birth as an American citizen will shield me from a strike on a terrorist location overseas. And I'm pretty sure they DON'T think it. Luckily there's morons here who as long as it's a cowardly way to criticize the current President (despite their wholesale justification of everything George W. Bush sanctioned against international law) will do the job for them.

... even if the target included children?

[Jack Springer]

When GWB was bombing the crap out of civilians, Republicans just shrugged their shoulders and called it "collateral damage".

When Obama uses drones to kill enemy targets and reduce civilian casualties to a minimum, Republicans are foaming at the mouth getting their jimmies rustled.

I guess they still can't get over the fact that Obama had Bin Laden put down halfway through his first term, while Bush II couldn't even locate him after 2 terms.

Big differences -- Bush did not personally select targets in Iraq -- Obama makes a card game out of the people he wants to kill. Iraq was a war -- approved by the US Congress -- Obama does things on his on - no approval.

Brennan should be interesting tomorrow.

[xbuzzerx]

... even if the target included children?

I return to my first question to you.

Please show upon what basis you believe this method of warfare endangers innocent people more than any conventional method of warfare, airstriking or occupation.

[Jack Springer]

I return to my first question to you.

Please show upon what basis you believe this method of warfare endangers innocent people more than any conventional method of warfare, airstriking or occupation.

The big difference? drones ... faceless killers.

Drones will be soon be readily available to almost anyone that wants them. They are a vehicle to deliver destruction and invade our privacy.

[xbuzzerx]

The big difference? drones ... faceless killers.

Drones will be soon be readily available to almost anyone that wants them. They are a vehicle to deliver destruction and invade our privacy.

So that I understand correctly: it matters to a dead bystander if they were killed by a drone or by ordinance dropped from 30,000 feet?

It doesn't make any difference whatsoever.

The difference that's actually pertinent is whether or not this method kills MORE or FEWER innocent people as collateral damage. And I think we both know what the answer to that one is.

[Rolyo85]

So that I understand correctly: it matters to a dead bystander if they were killed by a drone or by ordinance dropped from 30,000 feet?

It doesn't make any difference whatsoever.

The difference that's actually pertinent is whether or not this method kills MORE or FEWER innocent people as collateral damage. And I think we both know what the answer to that one is.

Yes, but but but! Obama! Socialism!

[FuryOfFirestorm]

The big difference? drones ... faceless killers.

Drones will be soon be readily available to almost anyone that wants them. They are a vehicle to deliver destruction and invade our privacy.

Our privacy was "being invaded" long before drones. There's these things called "surveillance cameras", "satellites", and "Google Maps". And don't start weeping and gnashing your teeth about "privacy" -GWB gave us the the Patriot Act, which made it legal for the government to tap your phones and monitor your internet usage without your approval or notice.

As for drones - so it's OK if we kill people with soldiers, tanks, guns and missiles, but when it done with drones, it's suddenly verboten? Someone notify the UN about this gross violation of the Geneva Convention so we can have Obama brought up before the Hague, STAT!

[rareboy]

The big difference? drones ... faceless killers.

Drones will be soon be readily available to almost anyone that wants them. They are a vehicle to deliver destruction and invade our privacy.

So the US apparently killed as many as 60,000 civilians in Iraq up to 2008.


With bombs dropped from planes.

Or rockets fired from the ground.

Or grenades.

But what you're saying is that these deaths are oaky because there is a face behind them?

Really Jack?

Really?

Is this how you think that Americans should think?

Really Jack?

[chrisrobin]

.
If it's a secret war how can we know about it?

[FuryOfFirestorm]

.
If it's a secret war how can we know about it?

Maybe Obama stole the power of The Beyonder and dropped a mountain on The Avengers, Fantastic Four and The X-Men?

[Jack Springer]

So if you guys thinks Obama killing all these people is so great -- why didn't you fully endorse the invasion of Iraq?

I can tell you ....... the word hypocrite comes to mind.

Enjoy the little ball kiss.

[Rolyo85]

So if you guys thinks Obama killing all these people is so great -- why didn't you fully endorse the invasion of Iraq?

I can tell you ....... the word hypocrite comes to mind.

Enjoy the little ball kiss.

Now he's "killing" all these people. Poisonous rhetoric, Springer, but nothing short of what I'd expect from you. And please try to not quote other users verbatim in your feeble attempts at being sarcastic. It makes said attempts sound dumb.

To explain - none of us are still FOR the war. But it's a fact of life and unlike your idiotic claim that we need to be sending soldiers to die there so that it's "real" and "hard"c and so that it "matters", we welcome drones as an alternative that saves US soldiers' lives. As an über patriot yourself, one would expect you'd be cheering with the best of them. What was that you were saying about hypocrisy?

...you should really not be trying to be sarcastic in a room where everyone else is better at it than you...

[xbuzzerx]

So the US apparently killed as many as 60,000 civilians in Iraq up to 2008.


With bombs dropped from planes.

Or rockets fired from the ground.

Or grenades.

But what you're saying is that these deaths are oaky because there is a face behind them?

Really Jack?

Really?

Is this how you think that Americans should think?

Really Jack?

And I feel completely certain that virtually 100% of people killed by airstrikes or tank ordinance never saw the face of their killer either. They may not have even seen the plane or tank that killed them.

So if you guys thinks Obama killing all these people is so great --

No one said that. I never supported the Iraq War period. But I would much rather we surgically strike at TERRORISTS rather than THE ENTIRE COUNTRY where there may be small pockets of terrorist cells involving hundreds of thousands of ground troops, to get rid of the militant terrorist threat of Al Qaeda.

There is no contradiction here Jack. If I'd had my way we NEVER would have done anything but surgically target terrorist training sites and facilities, we never would have mass invaded anyone. There would have been far, far fewer casualties if we'd had the intel and the will to conduct the war on terror that way.

[loki81]

so everyone's cool with giving the President the power to declare anyone a threat and order an assassination with absolutely no due process, no chance to object to being placed on the "kill list," and absolutely no oversight beyond "trust me, I'm not a bad guy"? I'd shudder to think what Nixon would have done with that power.

I can understand the value of using drone strikes to target hard to reach terrorists, American citizens or otherwise... but how can you support the utter lack of due process and oversight? it requires more work to get a wiretap ffs.

as far as I know, there's never even been an attempt at justifying the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki's 16 year-old son beyond "he should have a far more responsible father"

from the far-right radical ACLU:

The danger of dispensing with due process is obvious because without it, we cannot be assured that the people in the government's death database truly present a concrete, imminent threat to the country. What we do know is that tragic mistakes have been made, hundreds of civilian bystanders have died, and our government has even killed a 16-year-old U.S. citizen without acknowledging, let alone explaining his death. A bureaucratized paramilitary killing program that targets people far from any battlefield is not just unlawful, it will create more enemies than it kills

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2012438.html

[tigerfan482]

Why do so many people think that being an American citizen should shield you from being killed when you're living in another country, are a self-declared operative for a terrorist organization, and have organized and encouraged attacks on other American citizens? Terrorists, regardless of what country they have citizenship in, should not be able to hide in places where capture is impossible and live under the safety net of having <insert country here> citizenship to continue to carry out attack planning and support with impunity. al-Awlaki was linked to the Christmas Eve underwear bomber, the Times Square bomber, the Fort Hood shooter, and several plane bomb plots. His son was killed because he was hanging out with other non-US citizen terrorists who were the targets of an airstrike. When you have a history of repeated involvement in attempted attacks on American citizens, then it is entirely within the scope of self defense to take out that person to prevent future attempts.

Regardless though, only the Supreme Court can rule whether these actions violated any rights, and that case will be hard to bring since only al-Awlaki or someone he granted power of attorney can bring the case up against the government. He had his chance for 2 years to challenge his inclusion on the terrorist kill list and he didn't pursue it. Doesn't sound like he cared very much for defending his Constitutional rights as an American citizen.

[loki81]

Why do so many people think that being an American citizen should shield you from being killed when you're living in another country, are a self-declared operative for a terrorist organization, and have organized and encouraged attacks on other American citizens? Terrorists, regardless of what country they have citizenship in, should not be able to hide in places where capture is impossible and live under the safety net of having <insert country here> citizenship to continue to carry out attack planning and support with impunity. al-Awlaki was linked to the Christmas Eve underwear bomber, the Times Square bomber, the Fort Hood shooter, and several plane bomb plots. His son was killed because he was hanging out with other non-US citizen terrorists who were the targets of an airstrike. When you have a history of repeated involvement in attempted attacks on American citizens, then it is entirely within the scope of self defense to take out that person to prevent future attempts.

that rationale reminds me of the preemptive strike against Iraq.

being an American citizen guarantees you the right to due process. the system outlined in the leaked memos is profoundly vague about what constitutes a threat and there's absolutely no oversight outside of the Executive branch... if it's deemed that "kill lists" against American citizens are a necessity, there needs to be due process before getting placed on the list and there needs to be oversight and accountability. even holding it in a "secret court" like the patriot act wiretaps would at least hold it to a standard slightly higher than "some guy thinks he's a threat so we're going to assassinate him."

[tigerfan482]

that rationale reminds me of the preemptive strike against Iraq.

being an American citizen guarantees you the right to due process. the system outlined in the leaked memos is profoundly vague about what constitutes a threat and there's absolutely no oversight outside of the Executive branch... if it's deemed that "kill lists" against American citizens are a necessity, there needs to be due process before getting placed on the list and there needs to be oversight and accountability. even holding it in a "secret court" like the patriot act wiretaps would at least hold it to a standard slightly higher than "some guy thinks he's a threat so we're going to assassinate him."

Actually, being an American citizen gives you the right to due process unless you are an imminent threat, which is why police can shoot someone who is pointing a gun at them without having to hold a trial. al-Awlaki was declared an imminent threat and added to the terrorist kill list because of his involvement with attempted attacks on Americans. We have no idea what evidence may or may not have been presented to a SECRET court in regards to such. Either way, he (or his legal designee) had 2 years as the law-abiding American citizen people seem to insinuate he was to challenge the government in court and defend his rights. He did not do so, so any claim he may have had to his rights being violated is void.

[xbuzzerx]

so everyone's cool with giving the President the power to declare anyone a threat and order an assassination with absolutely no due process, no chance to object to being placed on the "kill list," and absolutely no oversight beyond "trust me, I'm not a bad guy"? I'd shudder to think what Nixon would have done with that power.

I can understand the value of using drone strikes to target hard to reach terrorists, American citizens or otherwise... but how can you support the utter lack of due process and oversight? it requires more work to get a wiretap ffs.

as far as I know, there's never even been an attempt at justifying the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki's 16 year-old son beyond "he should have a far more responsible father"

from the far-right radical ACLU:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2012438.html

Loki we are talking about Americans operating overseas as part of terrorist organizations often in remote, hostile parts of the world where either extracting them via diplomatic channels or simply permitting Al Qaeda cells to operate because they have an American national working with them are not feasible choices. We are not talking about Americans being caught with a dimebag of pot coming back in on an international flight. Nor do I believe for one moment that President Obama is operating on some loose canon wide ranging illegal ability to add anyone to a death list outside of the specific circumstances of that individual is operating in a group trying to carry out terrorist activities against the U.S. or as a member of a hostile foreign military structure.

Yes, I think your horror at this is misplaced and overblown. Yes, I think it's a desperate attack on the President.

[JayHawk]

Look i think this is uncharted territory and as a new technology just being used lethally in the public realm.

So the power given the President, that is so anguished in the posts above, should have checks and balances. On the whole I think Obama has done a somewhat fair job at that. Did triple A simply end up dead?? Or was there a long conversation that broke almost exclusively along party lines and then he was killed via drone? It wasn't this hidden act.

Yet can those of you defending Obama imagine GWB having that power? He had some of the capes but they were not refined to their peak under him and he wasn't looking for an evacuation route from the war zone. Obama was looking for alternatives to Americans dying and he found a very receptive CIA and Spec Force that had honed drone warfare. Still there was no over-arching policy for pulling triggers in Washington. Most wars we give that to people like me and other in uniform. I should say most previous wars. Command and Control is going to shift to HQ and ultimately to the White House in our civilian led military.

So considering those items WHY do you all think the memo is leaked? Is it to cry and wet yourself over the technology? Or it is to drive a conversation where then the President can then introduce legislation to control the use? Obama is going to let the republicans define their policy in the mind of obstructing him and then get them to sign it knowing it will be much more restrictive than if he designs it himself. I kinda like the way he operates.

[CowboyBob]

The big difference? drones ... faceless killers.

Drones will be soon be readily available to almost anyone that wants them. They are a vehicle to deliver destruction and invade our privacy.

Springer, if you're so upset with these "faceless killers" then by all means join up for the infantry and go and kill them with your bayonets. Stop being a critic and get involved. You're an armchair whiner.

Dammit, I am so sick of you regurgitating this republican propaganda.

I'll give you a ride to the nearest army recruiter in Raytown.

[GiancarloC]

Civil rights are only for select Americans?

What kind of liberal are you?

Bullshit... I never said that.

Right wingers think civil rights are only for select Americans. Look it up.

Bob is right... this thread is one sided propaganda and has little basis in reality...

[xbuzzerx]

In this thread: people completely incapable of distinguishing between adding someone to a terrorist watch list, a no-fly list and possibly shipping them to Egypt for interrogation for attending a peace or anti-war rally or for being an Arab American trying to reenter the U.S., and attacking an Al Qaeda cell that might have Saudis, Syrians, citizens of UAE and Americans operating it.

[tigerfan482]

Look i think this is uncharted territory and as a new technology just being used lethally in the public realm.

So the power given the President, that is so anguished in the posts above, should have checks and balances. On the whole I think Obama has done a somewhat fair job at that. Did triple A simply end up dead?? Or was there a long conversation that broke almost exclusively along party lines and then he was killed via drone? It wasn't this hidden act.

Yet can those of you defending Obama imagine GWB having that power? He had some of the capes but they were not refined to their peak under him and he wasn't looking for an evacuation route from the war zone. Obama was looking for alternatives to Americans dying and he found a very receptive CIA and Spec Force that had honed drone warfare. Still there was no over-arching policy for pulling triggers in Washington. Most wars we give that to people like me and other in uniform. I should say most previous wars. Command and Control is going to shift to HQ and ultimately to the White House in our civilian led military.

So considering those items WHY do you all think the memo is leaked? Is it to cry and wet yourself over the technology? Or it is to drive a conversation where then the President can then introduce legislation to control the use? Obama is going to let the republicans define their policy in the mind of obstructing him and then get them to sign it knowing it will be much more restrictive than if he designs it himself. I kinda like the way he operates.

The memo was leaked for one reason and one reason only - for political purposes. I will guarantee you it was leaked by a Republican Congressional staffer who had access to it when it was provided to Congress for review. There were already procedures in place for dealing with the killings, which is why the memo (and the parent DOJ legal opinion which wasn't leaked because it wasn't provided to Congress) existed in the first place. The President has now agreed to let Congress see the legal opinion/white paper that sets up the requirements for the system to enable them to complete their job of "oversight" (aka starting to run for re-election), but I'm sure that will be leaked as well. In situations like this, while people clamor for "oversight" and insist every American must know everything that goes on, we can't and shouldn't be releasing information like this. Things like this are classified for a reason and that's so we're not handing people who want to do us harm a checklist of what they need to make sure to either do or not do to avoid being killed in a drone strike.

[loki81]

I'm sure this is just more right-wing propaganda, but famed conservative commentator Rachel Maddow had what I thought to be a decent take-down of some of the concerns behind this.

the issue is, who's a bad guy and how do you figure it out? if this is the means by which we decide if the President can order you dead, then on what basis is the President making that decision?... if you're an American citizen and the President is going to kill you, do you have the right to give yourself up instead? and how do you know you should do that if the President's decision that he's going to kill you is a secret that nobody ever tells you?

[GiancarloC]

Uh huh... keep it up with that... sarcasm will only get one so far before people begin to roll their eyes.

[Rolyo85]

Unlike the spoon-fed right wingers around here, liberals tend to form their own opinions, which means we aren't a unified block with ONE opinion on each issue. I know that's VERY confusing for conservatives, but there you have it.

[loki81]

Unlike the spoon-fed right wingers around here, liberals tend to form their own opinions, which means we aren't a unified block with ONE opinion on each issue. I know that's VERY confusing for conservatives, but there you have it.

not sure what that has to do with the price of tea in China... I just don't understand how some can frame this entire issue as nothing but a desperate attack on the President by the right wing propaganda machine when you've got such conservative voices as the New York Times editorial board, Rachel Maddow, and democratic Senators criticizing the administration and voicing their legitimate concerns over this.

or is the entire thing not worth discussing simply because this thread was started by a conservative poster?

[Rolyo85]

not sure what that has to do with the price of tea in China... I just don't understand how some can frame this entire issue as nothing but a desperate attack on the President by the right wing propaganda machine when you've got such conservative voices as the New York Times editorial board, Rachel Maddow, and democratic Senators criticizing the administration and voicing their legitimate concerns over this.

or is the entire thing not worth discussing simply because this thread was started by a conservative poster?

Oh, it is worth discussing, and criticism is essential for any administration. However, given the history of the OP, and his blatant inconsistency when it comes to supporting things selectively and being against others just as selectively, this particular thread is highly unlikely to have any other purpose.

What my statement had to do with the price of tea in China, was that regardless of who agrees or disagrees with the administration's (mis)use of drones, the liberals tend to not go in lockstep with some "party line", unlike the conservatives. That's also the reason why we "lose so goddamn much" when it comes to elections by the way, so it's not necessarily a badge of honor, though I tend to view it so.

[rareboy]

This is the indelible and choking legacy of fear left by 9/11.

The die is cast. The US now uses torture, has suspended habeas corpus, wiretaps its citizens and apparently is targeting bad guys who also happen to be US citizens.

What the Fuck did everyone expect when BushCheney Co. set all this in motion?

We're never going back, you know. This heightened domestic security makes a lot of people a lot of money. They ain't ever gonna give that up.

[GiancarloC]

or is the entire thing not worth discussing simply because this thread was started by a conservative poster?

Actually this thread isn't even worth looking at because of its complete lack of credibility. The arguments are also selective and not looking at the bigger picture.

[HenryReardon]

Thanks for all the unsupported claims and comparing apples to oranges. I guess when the right wing does something against terrorism it's patriotism, but if Obama does he's overstepping his boundaries.

And it doesn't surprise me we have the other supposedly neutral, cynical one now ranting.

Anyone wants real hypocrisy? Look at the right wingers masquerading as those who are neutral and having their faux outrage!

Unless you're deaf, dumb, and blind, you should be well aware of the outrage expressed toward the Bush adminstration over waterboarding. Oops, forgot who I'm replying to.

Targeting Americans for death by drone and using enhanced interrogation against terrorists are subsets of the same problem - the continued presence of Islamic Terrorists. Oops, forgot again, Barry O's administration is afraid to use the term Islamic Terrorism. More of the deaf, dumb, and blind.

[xbuzzerx]

not sure what that has to do with the price of tea in China... I just don't understand how some can frame this entire issue as nothing but a desperate attack on the President by the right wing propaganda machine when you've got such conservative voices as the New York Times editorial board, Rachel Maddow, and democratic Senators criticizing the administration and voicing their legitimate concerns over this.

or is the entire thing not worth discussing simply because this thread was started by a conservative poster?

When it is demonstrated that the legal statute upon which Obama orders these drone attacks on terrorist cells is sufficiently liberal in interpretation to allow him (or another President) to do it in any other context, I'll become alarmed.

This is not equivalent to Bush being able to label anyone an "enemy combatant" and suspend all their rights, even if that meant just sweeping up some 14 year old goatherd's son into a crowd of guys being sent off to Gitmo indefinitely with no due process and being tortured under interrogation there for years for no crime.

[Jack Springer]

Now he's "killing" all these people. Poisonous rhetoric, Springer, but nothing short of what I'd expect from you. And please try to not quote other users verbatim in your feeble attempts at being sarcastic. It makes said attempts sound dumb.

To explain - none of us are still FOR the war. But it's a fact of life and unlike your idiotic claim that we need to be sending soldiers to die there so that it's "real" and "hard"c and so that it "matters", we welcome drones as an alternative that saves US soldiers' lives. As an über patriot yourself, one would expect you'd be cheering with the best of them. What was that you were saying about hypocrisy?

...you should really not be trying to be sarcastic in a room where everyone else is better at it than you...

I'm guessing most of the other JUBBERS would be surprised that you speak for them too.

Talk about arrogant.

[Jack Springer]

I return to my first question to you.

Please show upon what basis you believe this method of warfare endangers innocent people more than any conventional method of warfare, airstriking or occupation.

You didn't read the article I supplied. It illustrates how at least two innocent people and camel were killed by Obama's new drone war.

- - - Updated - - -

Bullshit... I never said that.

Right wingers think civil rights are only for select Americans. Look it up.

Bob is right... this thread is one sided propaganda and has little basis in reality...

Bob only sees what he wants to see. He's a very biased person.

[tigerfan482]

Targeting Americans for death by drone and using enhanced interrogation against terrorists are subsets of the same problem - the continued presence of Islamic Terrorists. Oops, forgot again, Barry O's administration is afraid to use the term Islamic Terrorism. More of the deaf, dumb, and blind.

This is incorrect. Let's address your use of Islamic terrorists first. The US goes after terrorists. The Islamic modifier is added in simply to drum up sentiment against the religion/region. Just because the majority of terrorists follow Islam doesn't mean the majority of people who follow Islam are terrorists. It would be akin to fighting Gay AIDS instead of just AIDS.

Now, to use your words, "targeting Americans for death by drone" and "using enhanced interrogation techniques against terrorists" are not really subsets of the problem you described. First of all, terrorists are targeted for death by drone. If they happen to be American, so be it. You aren't entitled to use your citizenship to hide in another country beyond the reach of US law and organize/inspire killings of Americans. That being said, the torture techniques (referred to by you as "enhanced interrogation techniques")have been around long before this current focus on terrorists and have been outlawed by various treaties, including the Geneva Conventions. However, killing bad guys on a battlefield in order to protect yourself or your citizens is allowed and is not illegal. The US has been working with Yemen on their fight against terrorism and so this guy, who had a self-proclaimed affiliation with al'Qaeda, was found in the country and eliminated as a terrorist and enemy of the United States. This is completely different from capturing a person and torturing them until they say what you want to hear.

This guy had his chance for his day in court. The fact he was on a terrorist kill list was known for 2 years. It wasn't secret. He refused to pursue that and continued his terrorist activities. He was the only person responsible for getting himself blown up. It's the same as police shooting a suspect in a bunker holding a kid hostage. Where is your outrage over that since you are so averse to any American being killed for any reason without a trial?

[Jack Springer]

Have you not heard of DUE PROCESS?

As US citizens we have certain rights -- again, this is strange hearing that we lack certain rights as US citizens.

Why do so many people think that being an American citizen should shield you from being killed when you're living in another country, are a self-declared operative for a terrorist organization, and have organized and encouraged attacks on other American citizens? Terrorists, regardless of what country they have citizenship in, should not be able to hide in places where capture is impossible and live under the safety net of having <insert country here> citizenship to continue to carry out attack planning and support with impunity. al-Awlaki was linked to the Christmas Eve underwear bomber, the Times Square bomber, the Fort Hood shooter, and several plane bomb plots. His son was killed because he was hanging out with other non-US citizen terrorists who were the targets of an airstrike. When you have a history of repeated involvement in attempted attacks on American citizens, then it is entirely within the scope of self defense to take out that person to prevent future attempts.

Regardless though, only the Supreme Court can rule whether these actions violated any rights, and that case will be hard to bring since only al-Awlaki or someone he granted power of attorney can bring the case up against the government. He had his chance for 2 years to challenge his inclusion on the terrorist kill list and he didn't pursue it. Doesn't sound like he cared very much for defending his Constitutional rights as an American citizen.

[tigerfan482]

Have you not heard of DUE PROCESS?

As US citizens we have certain rights -- again, this is strange hearing that we lack certain rights as US citizens.

Did you read any of the rest of it? No one took away his right to due process. Besides, rights are limited. It's why you can't scream fire in a crowded theater. It's why you can't use religion to justify killing someone. It's why police can shoot an armed suspect pointing a gun at them without having a trial. This guy was a threat. He had demonstrated his continued willingness to prepare and send people out to take American lives. He was an imminent threat and was taken out when they had the chance. If an imminent threat exists, then you don't have to have a trial. There are even questions about his actual citizenship since he verbally renounced it.

Like I said, the Supreme Court can rule on his death - if he were to come back from the dead to challenge the government.

[Jack Springer]

This is the indelible and choking legacy of fear left by 9/11.

The die is cast. The US now uses torture, has suspended habeas corpus, wiretaps its citizens and apparently is targeting bad guys who also happen to be US citizens.

What the Fuck did everyone expect when BushCheney Co. set all this in motion?

We're never going back, you know. This heightened domestic security makes a lot of people a lot of money. They ain't ever gonna give that up.

Obama has gone far past anything that the Patriot Act provided. Bush received holy hell from the media and the left for limited wiretaps -- Obama can wiretap anything he wants now -- the media was quiet.

Obama can target American citizens and the left still kisses his left ball.

I'll use the word again to describe the left --- HYPOCRITE