Drone Strikes: Obama's Secret War

[GiancarloC]

"WHat disconnect? That's debatable at best. They are more for precision strikes, and if terrorists use civilian shields, that's their problem. In Mali, terrorists were using civilians as shields, but the people still wanted the French to eliminate them. As far as Pakistan, that country was a lost cause a long time ago. Drones are saving more lives in the end.

[Lefty]

Loki,

In an ideal world, we are all civilians of the world. The drones (as I understand it) are not deployed against
countries, we have NUKES and better for that. They are being (hopefully) against splinters that continue to
threaten peoples that don't want to live under their rule as sheep to a shepherd. They are one more example
of refusing to be the lamb to the slaughter (yes they have, do and will continue to do so if allowed)

[centexfarmer]

Believe it or not, much to the chagrin of my friends out here in the real world, I'd rather find the things that we can agree upon rather than focus on those things which most divide us.

The general consensus from a lot of posts (152 posts in) from those usually divided on politics, seem to agree (for the most part) that drones are good.

It has been pointed out in this discussion, that Americans need to be having this talk.

When and where do we say the use of drones is "too much?"

I've been watching a lot of shows on NPR, The Discovery Channel, and reading a broad range of articles on this topic; everything from the Radio Shack geeks who want to take video of their neighborhood, to some kick as photographers in Baltimore, Maryland who like taking aerial shots from their "drone" from angles, heights and perspective not seen from land based angles.

I saw a piece on CBS Sunday Morning, where it was mentioned that most of the U.S. Military 'seem to know, but won't admit' that drones are the future of "war."

But all of that is really just the "technical on the surface" discussions.

The implications of the use of drone technology are much more onerous, and we should be having this discussion.

As a Yellow Dog Democrat, my biggest disappointment in Obama is that as much as he campaigned against Bush43's "war on terrorism," he's not only bought into, but opened up whole new dimensions in ways that I find are justifiable from his critics.

So let's not let those doing the bitching and complaining be silenced, regardless of how hypocritical their voices may sound now.

We need to stop all of that shit, and as Americans collectively express our voices and opinions about how we are represented in the world, and whether or not we can humanly justify NOT sending one of our own to personally defend our "freedoms."

I support the use of Drones.

There I said it!

But at some point I believe that all of us are going to find ourselves in a position where "Whoa! That's too far!"

Some (many?) are already saying that.

But if we don't have this discussion NOW and ponder all of the "what ifs" then when?

When there's a little hummingbird size drone hovering outside of your window taking pictures, and video taping you through your window like a voyeur?

Ethically my biggest bitch with Obama right now, is that there really don't seem to be any constraints on the use of drones.

Why hire an assassin, or a mercenary/government subcontractor when you can send over a drone to do all of our dirty work, and so what if it gets shot down? It accomplished it's mission, and who gives a damn of there aren't any "laws" saying we shouldn't?

I think/feel as Americans that's where we're at.

[Jack Springer]

^^
When a drone drops the first dirty bomb on a USA city or one is used to assassinate a world leader - I wonder if your opinion will change.

Drones were cute when they first came out, I liked them -- but then after thinking about the possibilities, I realized that they are the biggest escalation of war since the creation of the nuclear bomb ... or is it the invention of gun powder or invention of the wheel.

War needs to be personal.

[Lefty]

Yeah,

What he 'centex farmer' said

But it was more funner my way.

BTW JACK, check around

Disputes are usually personal.
Wars are usually not...I know
you are a champion disputer,
were you ever a warrior...
just asking.

[Jack Springer]

Nothing like using a drone to kill a 16 yo boy.

[xbuzzerx]

I feel like there's a disconnect... most people don't have issues with drones as a matter of technology. being able to make targeted strikes against terrorists without having to put soldiers in danger is great.

but there's a lot to question when it comes to the process (no oversight, evidence, or due process required to deploy them against US citizens, the fact that they're managed by the CIA and not the military, deploying them against countries we're not at war with, etc). there's also the question of whether they're creating more terrorists than they're actually killing, especially when they kill civilians.

Loki my question is, why is this reaction coming up now specific to the use of drones when these issues were all completely ignored during airstrikes and shock and awe campaigns for a decade?

Every single time you heard a story about a terrorist cell being bombed, blown up or whatever else, do you think the U.S. military was checking the passports and birth certificates of everyone suspected to be in the cell and consulting with the courts of each respective country to get some kind of warrant?

I just don't get why this suddenly bothers people NOW, under Obama.

- - - Updated - - -

Nothing like using a drone to kill a 16 yo boy.

I'm sure it really mattered to the boy if a drone or ground troops killed him. Except the drone is killing a lot less 16 year old boys.

[Jack Springer]

Yeah,

What he 'centex farmer' said

But it was more funner my way.

BTW JACK, check around

Disputes are usually personal.
Wars are usually not...I know
you are a champion disputer,
were you ever a warrior...
just asking.

Nope, I was never in the military.

I just can't understand why liberals are celebrating war now.

If you have no 'skin' in the game -- what's the purpose of a war? Drones are objects not human beings.

[Jack Springer]

Loki my question is, why is this reaction coming up now specific to the use of drones when these issues were all completely ignored during airstrikes and shock and awe campaigns for a decade?

Every single time you heard a story about a terrorist cell being bombed, blown up or whatever else, do you think the U.S. military was checking the passports and birth certificates of everyone suspected to be in the cell and consulting with the courts of each respective country to get some kind of warrant?

I just don't get why this suddenly bothers people NOW, under Obama.

- - - Updated - - -



I'm sure it really mattered to the boy if a drone or ground troops killed him. Except the drone is killing a lot less 16 year old boys.

OK, just 16 yo boys that Obama selectively wants to kill. Makes perfect sense now.

[JayHawk]

I agree Centex but as I said before I do give Obama credit for 'leaking' this memo to start the fire under the conversation. I believe he wants the fight of setting limits now because HE knows from his perspective how easy it could be abused with no congressional or judicial oversight. Think about his selection of Brennan which should have driven the conversation since he is the god father of automated death in America..... but it didnt... so he then leaked this memo.... Obama is stoking this fire so the public will demand some boundaries.

I also think we need to set boundaries so we can help lead the effort to set a new chapter in the Law of Armed Conflict. That all countries will sign onto in agreement.

[xbuzzerx]

OK, just 16 yo boys that Obama selectively wants to kill. Makes perfect sense now.

This isn't worth responding to Jack. You have no evidence for that kind of a claim.

[JayHawk]

Nope, I was never in the military.

I just can't understand why liberals are celebrating war now.

If you have no 'skin' in the game -- what's the purpose of a war? Drones are objects not human beings.

What I dont understand is how you developed a love for mankind after a democrat took office but before hand was a war monger supporting Bush. Have you no core sense of values?

[xbuzzerx]

Nope, I was never in the military.

I just can't understand why liberals are celebrating war now.

If you have no 'skin' in the game -- what's the purpose of a war? Drones are objects not human beings.

(Requoting)

You believe there is a double standard when there isn't one.

I don't want innocent people to die at all, but even liberals all supported that we had to do something about the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan after 9/11. What I didn't support was full scale ground invasions of countries that had absolutely nothing to do with it.

I don't want innocent people to die, but if the choice with a target we must strike (such as a terrorist training camp affiliated with a group that HAS carried out successful terrorist attacks against the U.S.) is either to invade the entire country resulting in tens or hundreds of thousands killed directly or indirectly, and surgically striking at the cells themselves, I take the latter.

I don't suffer under any delusion that any method of war can reduce innocent casualties to 0%. That's why I believe we should only do anything at all in cases of actual necessity and not cases of political and economic expediency, as with the Iraq War.

So no... simply saying that any method of war kills innocent people doesn't surprise me, but saying a method that kills far fewer is somehow something we should all be as outraged about as a completely needless ground invasion that resulted in the deaths of about 100,000 people and should be called a war crime by comparison is at best a stretch. At worst it's pure partisanship.

If you want anyone to take seriously this notion that the U.S. is just willy-nilly calling anyone it doesn't like a threat and sending a drone after them then show us some instance of that instead of strikes on Al Qaeda cells that may have people of many different national backgrounds involved and telling us that's an inhumane war crime because some tiny percentage of them may be American by birth.

Also, skin in the game Jack? Really? When we invade countries that have no military seriously capable of even attempting to stop us and the primary way they fight us are IED's and terrorist or suicide bombings? A lot of people wind up dying uselessly because we're on the ground in huge numbers when all we're really after are a few hundred people hiding out in caves out in the desert or up in the mountains.

The two wars we were involved in weren't wars as much as incredibly costly occupations so that we could get at a small group of terrorist cells but resulted in tons of innocent casualties. This position you're taking that somehow surgically striking at the terrorists themselves rather than invading the entire country is far more unethical is pretty brain numbingly stupid, and shows the legitimacy of your concern for human life when you'd prefer a method that gets tens of thousands of civilians slain just for getting in the way of a fight that is really only between us and terrorist cells, not the entire countries in which those cells may be located.

[Lefty]

Somebody want to draw a picture for Jack...

And/or get him into the big picture. .

The thread asks about using drones instead of
troops to terminate terrorist groups...

Or did I misunderstand from the gitgo here?
If so, sorry, I'mma gone...
ouchouch

[Rolyo85]

pretty brain numbingly stupid

That pretty much sums up the whole anti-drone "argument" in this forum.

[loki81]

Loki my question is, why is this reaction coming up now specific to the use of drones when these issues were all completely ignored during airstrikes and shock and awe campaigns for a decade?

Every single time you heard a story about a terrorist cell being bombed, blown up or whatever else, do you think the U.S. military was checking the passports and birth certificates of everyone suspected to be in the cell and consulting with the courts of each respective country to get some kind of warrant?

I just don't get why this suddenly bothers people NOW, under Obama.

it bothered a lot of people under GWB too, myself included.

the reason it's coming to the fore now, this week specifically, is because of the John Brennan confirmation hearing. he was part of the GWB team that decided it's cool to waterboard terrorists, and he's been a huge proponent of using drones to kill anyone the US government decides to label as a terrorist, with no requirement of evidence or oversight.

[centexfarmer]

^^
When a drone drops the first dirty bomb on a USA city or one is used to assassinate a world leader - I wonder if your opinion will change.

Who needs a drone?

You can do that in a rented panel van in Times Square, or in the parking lot under the St. Louis Gateway Arch.

Or in a piece of luggage on an Amtrak train, NYC Subway, the Boston T, the DC Metro, or Bay Area Rapid Transit.

Seriously!

If a group of retarded American Born "jihadists" are cobbling together parts from Radio Shack, eBay, and Craig's List, to "drop a dirty bomb" somewhere, then we're clearly thinking that "duct tape" and the Department of Homeland Security (the largest build up/consolidation of Government Power Since FDR, except under a "conservative republican"/Bush43, and kept off the GBO books), then it's clear that you and I are afeared of completely different things.

Drones were cute when they first came out, I liked them -- but then after thinking about the possibilities, I realized that they are the biggest escalation of war since the creation of the nuclear bomb ... or is it the invention of gun powder or invention of the wheel.

Shit!

Jack they're WORSE THAN THAT!

That's the point that I was trying to make in my post here in your thread.

War needs to be personal.

How personal?

I promise not to cum in your mouth personal?

This will only hurt for a little while personal?

My son or daughter signed up for the National Guard, but was sent to die outside of our Nation personal?

How personal are we talking here?

While the "Corporate Whores" known as at least two of our three branches of Government (1. POTUS, 2. Congress...who are also responsible for the 3rd; SCOTUS), send our youngest, best and brightest off to do a war that a DRONE can do?

How quaint.

But why?

Does it make war less lethal?

I'm going to tell you something that all of our "sources" won't tell you:

As Americans we're not meant to agree. What we once believed were the power houses of information and journalism, what we once believed were the laws and governing powers of legislation balancing that influence (the FCC for example) haven't existed since Reagan/Bush41. That's earlier than most of the posters of this forum have been alive!

There are far more opinions in this country regarding Honey Boo Boo, and how much the Kardashians spent on their last wedding, then who KNOW who their elected representatives are, or what they do!

Frankly, that scares the shit out of me more than Drones, or dirty bombs being "dropped" somewhere.

Because it's all coming.

How do I know?

Add up the number of innocent Americans that have been killed at American Universities, Shopping Malls, Movie Theaters, and Elementary Schools in the past four years, and how Americans have been convinced that any attempt to legislate that means that we all have to give up our guns.

You can thank the National fucking Rifle Association for that.

Do you somehow think that Halliburton, Raytheon, General Electric, Time Warner Cable, or Comcast might have any less interest?

Following your logic, it's only a matter of time where we should all have DRONES of our own.

Without ANY thought to the consequences.

We'll be flooded on our Facebook pages by ads to buy our own, and which "sponsor" has the best prices!

Pissing and moaning about which partisan President did what, or executive orders that were signed, or which party allow it to happen is nothing more than scenery.

As Americans we need to engage...NOW!

[JayHawk]

You know Tex I hear tell that if you hide your head in the sand and dont develop drone technology then no one else will do it.... maybe that was Jack's point... we should revert to pre-WWI mindset of ignoring the world and maybe it will go away.

[centexfarmer]

You know Tex I hear tell that if you hide your head in the sand and dont develop drone technology then no one else will do it.... maybe that was Jack's point... we should revert to pre-WWI mindset of ignoring the world and maybe it will go away.

I have to apologize, but I won't sign off on that.

Seriously how "secret" could Obama's "drone war" be if we're all talking about it?

[xbuzzerx]

it bothered a lot of people under GWB too, myself included.

the reason it's coming to the fore now, this week specifically, is because of the John Brennan confirmation hearing. he was part of the GWB team that decided it's cool to waterboard terrorists, and he's been a huge proponent of using drones to kill anyone the US government decides to label as a terrorist, with no requirement of evidence or oversight.

Loki even assuming that treating terrorist cells as a legal apprehension problem or interpol issue, which largely is not remotely feasible or practical, what is it that you would like to see happen if we found a terrorist cell, stopped, and requested extradition rights from Saudi Arabia for its nationals that may be operating as terrorists in the cell, and they say no?

If you say "then do it anyway", then so much for the due process argument.

I honestly see fighting terrorists abroad in situations where you can't just send local police to arrest them is possible under the constraints you would like to see it done. And I also think the fact that we would only really care about whatever marginal percentage of overseas terrorists are American by birth, and don't really care at all if we're surgically striking at a base with Saudi Nationals or whatever other-nationals in it in a third party country, is a bit disingenuous.

The oath of allegiance to the United States involves the phrase "enemies foreign and domestic." I don't know that an American national operating as part of an international terrorist group overseas qualifies as a domestic enemy, but he is certainly whatever the categorization, an enemy.

Yes, if your sole concern is that people are not being added willy-nilly to a kill list (something I have zero reason to believe has happened) and want to see criteria drawn up upon which someone can be qualified in this manner while in a terrorist cell overseas, fine. Let's wrangle over the language and it looks like that's where this is headed politically anyway. But I don't buy this concept sans any evidence that Obama is just personally adding people he doesn't like to the list, nor do I buy the feasibility of a picture where we just send cops and customs inspectors to terrorist cells and request information about their identities and nationalities prior to acting against terrorist threats. Which is what it sounds like is all you'd be satisfied with.

[chance1]

Hawkish progressives

who knew

"bandwagon" at it again

we don't like that

oh obama did it ? never mind

lots of rubbing going on

[xbuzzerx]

Hawkish progressives

who knew

"bandwagon" at it again

we don't like that

oh obama did it ? never mind

lots of rubbing going on

No progressive ever disagreed we had to do something about the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan after 9/11. Not a single one. Equating the left's opposition to the Iraq War and the war in Afghanistan as part of some moronic "regime change/install Democracy operating system" ideology with "progressives were never for striking terrorist cells" is either your lack of comprehension or your lack of intellectual honesty.

[chance1]

No progressive ever disagreed we had to do something about the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan after 9/11. Not a single one. Equating the left's opposition to the Iraq War and the war in Afghanistan as part of some moronic "regime change/install Democracy operating system" ideology with "progressives were never for striking terrorist cells" is either your lack of comprehension or your lack of intellectual honesty.

the point is this: and please understand it

what pres. obama is doing, and i support it, IF GWB or Romney or plug in a repub. were doing it ....... it'd be front page news and there'd be protests from progressives

giancarlo supporting assassin drones given his posting history is just one example of the hypocrisy

"intellectual honesty" requires ur response to be "you're right"

[loki81]

my concern over the drone program has very little to do with President Obama, at the root of it. he may have opened the door on making it legal to issue kill orders on American citizens without evidence or oversight, but I generally trust him not to abuse that.. but there's no guarantee that we'll never see another Nixon or GWB in office, and if Congress doesn't check this power now, it probably never will (or at least not until something catastrophic happens that brings more attention to it... see also: gun regulations)

I can understand the necessity of these drone strikes, and I'd definitely say they're favorable to sending troops in harms way. but like most liberals, I'm a fan of regulations the leaked memo basically gives the CIA the authority to declare anyone a terrorist and make up any vague threat they want. that needs to change. it seems batshit insane to me that there's more legal oversight in getting a wiretap on someone than putting them on a Kill List... like FISA had to be reigned in by Congress, at a minimum there should be an outside body (ideally a judicial court like FISA) that needs to approve the death sentences for American citizens before being added to the kill list, with evidence required for both their guilt and the immediate nature of whatever threat the CIA/military thinks they pose.

when you're on the same side of a foreign policy issue as Dick Cheney, it should at least give you pause.

[centexfarmer]

the point is this: and please understand it

what pres. obama is doing, and i support it, IF GWB or Romney or plug in a repub. were doing it ....... it'd be front page news and there'd be protests from progressives

giancarlo supporting assassin drones given his posting history is just one example of the hypocrisy

"intellectual honesty" requires ur response to be "you're right"

That's BULLSHIT and you know it.

You seem to be perfectly fine when the "right wing head bobbles" come along posting their in-corruptible Peggy Noonan Op-Ed pieces, while completely forgetting that she's nothing more than a writer with an opinion.

Hell, I don't even mind when you come along and call the so called "liberal head bobbles" who post in this forum on their hypocrisy!

But God Help Us All if you can't stand on a single argument without support of the Wall Street Journal or the New York Post.



Then it somehow becomes personal for you:

i think this thread sucks

oh look another giant circle jerk from the obama-ball-lickers-club

i can tell where the moderators loyalty lies....i'm part of the 15 and the 85 are a bunch of progressive assholes....

blah, blah, blah.

When truth be told you really don't give a shit one way or another.

You just enjoy being the "Contrary Mary."

It sells better.

Am I wrong?

[Rolyo85]

the point is this: and please understand it

what pres. obama is doing, and i support it, IF GWB or Romney or plug in a repub. were doing it ....... it'd be front page news and there'd be protests from progressives

giancarlo supporting assassin drones given his posting history is just one example of the hypocrisy

"intellectual honesty" requires ur response to be "you're right"

Two points:

1. The "you'd be doing it too if the roles were reversed" is:
a) An indefensible argument, unless supported with citations from a time when roles WERE reversed, and as such - absolutely pointless.
b) An admission that you guys aren't doing it because you care, but because it's not your party that's in charge, and as such - absolutely reprehensible.

2. I can't speak about that argument, because the roles HAVEN'T been reversed - drones are too new - but even if that were the case, a measure of explanation would come from the fact that personally, I would not trust GWB or Romney to even remotely have the interest of the country or the people, but rather some personal gain in mind. Say what you will, but GWB and Romney (as well as the Clintons, to be frank) come from a very different place than Obama does - a much more privileged and tied to many more financial interests.

[xbuzzerx]

the point is this: and please understand it

what pres. obama is doing, and i support it, IF GWB or Romney or plug in a repub. were doing it ....... it'd be front page news and there'd be protests from progressives

giancarlo supporting assassin drones given his posting history is just one example of the hypocrisy

"intellectual honesty" requires ur response to be "you're right"

I think you missed the fact that what Bush was doing was grabbing up huge amounts of people at random and throwing them in blacklist prisons indefinitely, often with no evidence and no charges.. and then torturing them. That's what people on the left were outraged about, that and the fact that the entire reason for invading Iraq was a farce. There were no protests over GWB bombing terrorist training facilities in Afghanistan.

You're accusing the left of doing what you guys are doing right here on this very topic-- you didn't really have a problem with casualties of virtually any magnitude in unnecessary wars, provided that war was started by a Republican. No one here has said civilian casualties are a good thing. We have however said if we must strike at imminent threats or terrorist cells, drones do it with a lot less destruction and a lot less death than wholesale invading an entire country.

[CowboyBob]

Now it's "bandwagon"..... used to be the Walking Dead, then The Dead, then the 85% as a slur to those he disagrees with. What's it going to be next?

[xbuzzerx]

my concern over the drone program has very little to do with President Obama, at the root of it. he may have opened the door on making it legal to issue kill orders on American citizens without evidence or oversight, but I generally trust him not to abuse that.. but there's no guarantee that we'll never see another Nixon or GWB in office, and if Congress doesn't check this power now, it probably never will (or at least not until something catastrophic happens that brings more attention to it... see also: gun regulations)

I can understand the necessity of these drone strikes, and I'd definitely say they're favorable to sending troops in harms way. but like most liberals, I'm a fan of regulations the leaked memo basically gives the CIA the authority to declare anyone a terrorist and make up any vague threat they want. that needs to change. it seems batshit insane to me that there's more legal oversight in getting a wiretap on someone than putting them on a Kill List... like FISA had to be reigned in by Congress, at a minimum there should be an outside body (ideally a judicial court like FISA) that needs to approve the death sentences for American citizens before being added to the kill list, with evidence required for both their guilt and the immediate nature of whatever threat the CIA/military thinks they pose.

when you're on the same side of a foreign policy issue as Dick Cheney, it should at least give you pause.

Loki, I totally agree with you that no President should be able, without oversight or draw up criteria, to add anyone to a hit list. You have no argument from me on that.

But that's an ongoing discussion going back at LEAST as far as the Iraq War over Presidential powers and the categorization of enemy combatants or imminent dangers to the U.S., and yes, it's a discussion we should have. What I have found disingenuous in these threads-- and it's not in reference to you personally-- is that people who absolutely were cheerleaders for the Iraq War are now saying everyone should be outraged because drones have resulted in some innocent casualties. I find that dishonest to such an incredibly sick degree. We put around 100,000 civilians into their graves over a war that absolutely did not need to be fought and gained us nothing (well, everyone but Halliburton and people involved in natural resource distribution) and these same people were absolutely all for that, and now turn around and point fingers at me or Democrats here and say we support murdering children because of the drone program. That's absolute bullshit of an absolutely enormous magnitude.

[chance1]

Now it's "bandwagon"..... used to be the Walking Dead, then The Dead, then the 85% as a slur to those he disagrees with. What's it going to be next?

u forgot the best one

[centexfarmer]

u forgot the best one

Why don't you start your own thread with a poll giving us a list and allow us to vote on our favorites?

I for one really love and admire when you contribute with anything that allows any substance around here.

[chance1]

i'll leave that for one of my fans i'm humble u see despite vulgar's smear campaign

[centexfarmer]

i'll leave that for one of my fans

I've broken this post into two parts:

i'm humble u see despite vulgar's smear campaign

Vulgar that's your que!

If you need some help in constructing a poll for CE&P, drop me a PM or just create it, and I'll help iron out any wrinkles that you might encounter with the software.

[itsmejeff]

Why r gys s ntllctlly dshnst nd lckng n lgcl blts? Whn dd ths stpd grnflln bcm grp f plgsts fr mrdr nd wr? t s mr sd bcs mny f th ntllctlly dffrntly dvntgds spprtng ths prgrm clm t b lbrl.

As far as countries like Yemen go, the US is working with the government of that country to fight terrorism. Terrorists (including the supposed innocent American citizen and his son) get killed under the tacit authority of the government there. Constitutional protections do not extend to people who are an active threat to others. I've stated time and time again here - an example is police officers are legally allowed to shoot people who are pointing guns at them.

nd thr r rls t sch thrts, chld. Th plc cnnt brn yr hs dwn bcs thy blv y mrdrd smn. Thy cnnt sht y f thy thnk y stl smthng. Thr hs t b n mmnnt thrt t th sfty f th ffcr r th pblc. bm ds nt blv n tht. Hs dmnstrtn sys tht nyn s thrt rgrdlss f th vdnc t shw tht.

Cnstttnl prtctns d xst fr ths wh r thrt t thrs. r y dffrntly ntllctlly dvntgd? Mrdrrs hv trl. Thy d nt jst sht thm whrvr thy r fnd. Thy r nt vn klld ftr trl n mst css.

And by the way, I find it hard to believe that a 16 year old was in Yemen with his terrorist father studying international business at University of Sana'a. You don't get killed in a drone strike that killed known terrorists if you have "no links to any terrorist organization." [...] The target was another terrorist and he just happened to be with him and 6 of his friends.

Hs sn hd nt bn n cntct wth hm fr vr 2 yrs. H dd tw wks ftr hs fthr. t ws sprt strk. Th S gvrnmnt clmd tht bdlrhmn l-wlk ws "mltry-g ml" s t cld kll hm--rmmbr hw h ws 21 yr ld ml n rprts? H ws clltrl dmg fr strk gnst knwn trrrst. Tht ws brhm l-Bnn. t ws rprtd tht h ws klld n th strk. Trns t tht w ws nt. l-Bnn ws nt vn thr. s sch, thr s n "ffcl" rcrd f bdlrhmn's dth. f h ws trrrst, thn th S gvrnmnt wld pnt t ths lnks. t chss t gnr th dth bcs thr s n vdnc tht ny f ths klld hd ny lnks t ny trrrst grp.

They are targeting and killing people who attacked our country - either through planning and participating in terrorist attacks on our homeland or by fighting us on the battlefield. We're not just going in and randomly bombing places in random countries. [...] If they surround themselves with children and civilians, that's their fault for being too cowardly to fight and instead shoot some mortars at troops and then run back into Pakistan.

Bllsht. Th drn prgrm ntlly ws ttckng hgh lvl trgts, bt t hs snc mvd n t kllng lw lvl ft sldrs nd ths sspctd f bng nvlvd wth trrrsm. r jst bng cls t t. Th S gvrnmnt klls ndr th prsmptn tht ppl nr sspctd trrrsts r p t n gd. r ppl dng thngs tht my b bd. grp f ppl gthrd? Blw tht sht p. Kll thm. Thy r thrt t yr sfty nd lbrty.

Cwrdly? Cwrdly s gvng hgh schl drpts rmt cntrlld wpns nd hvng thm bmb wddngs. Cwrdly s kllng cvlns. mrcns r clrly t lst s cwrdly s ths thy r fghtng--pssbly mr s.

Also, you're not required to charge everyone on the battlefield with a crime before targeting them. That's not even a rational proposition.

Chld, Ymn nd Sml r nt bttlflds. Ymn ws nly llwd bcs th frmr rlr, wh ws kllng hs wn ppl lrdy, llwd th S n. Pkstn s nly llwd bcs Pkstn hs nt sd n. Pkstn ds nt thrz drn strks. t dd nt vn llw thm. t cknwldgd rqsts fr r spc. Tht s t.

What would your response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 been? What country would you like the United States to be like since you're anti-US and anti-western nations? How would you go about addressing the threats the United States and her citizens face? Let's hear some ideas and not just a litany of complaints.

Rl f lw, chld. Rl f lw. Ths s th lbrl pstn. Trgldyts kll frst nd sk qstns ltr. Th S s sppsd b bt dmcrcy. Trls. Rghts. t s nt. t s bnch f bld thrsty gnrmss. f nwr l-wlk ws glty f sm crm nd sm spr trrrst, thn th vdnc gnst hm shld b prsntd. Th ttmpt shld b md t cptr hm. Thy knw whr h ws. Ymn ws cmplct n S fghtng gnst hm. N ttmpt t cptr ths trrrst mstrmnd t gt nfrmtn bt hs ftr ttcks? Rlly?

gn, h hd rghts (ncldng frst mndmnt rghts t pps th S nd ts plcs).

my concern over the drone program has very little to do with President Obama, at the root of it. he may have opened the door on making it legal to issue kill orders on American citizens without evidence or oversight, but I generally trust him not to abuse that.

H dd nt pn th dr. H dd t nd pblcly dmttd t t. H dd t. H sd t s cmpgn pnt. Th stpd nd th vlnt (hv mrrr?) chrd t n. Y trst th gy wh s kllng S ctzns wtht vrsght t s tht pwr rspnsbly?Hw mch ck dd yr mthr d whl sh ws prgnnt?

When we invade countries that have no military seriously capable of even attempting to stop us...

[...] This position you're taking that somehow surgically striking at the terrorists themselves rather than invading the entire country is far more unethical is pretty brain numbingly stupid, and shows the legitimacy of your concern for human life when you'd prefer a method that gets tens of thousands of civilians slain just for getting in the way of a fight that is really only between us and terrorist cells, not the entire countries in which those cells may be located.

Stp nvdng cntrs thn.

Ths r nt strks gnst trrrsts. Thy r strks gnst "sspctd mltnts." ny mltry g ml s bl t b klld. Y wld nvr lt tht fly f nthr cntry ws dng tht gnst th S. s nyn cllng fr wr thr? N. Ppl r cllng fr th S t stp ts cmpgn f mrdr. Kll lsts clrly r nt wrkng whn thy r vr xpndng.

[xbuzzerx]

These are not strikes against terrorists. They are strikes against "suspected militants." Any military age male is able to be killed. You would never let that fly if another country was doing that against the US. Is anyone calling for war either? No. People are calling for the US to stop its campaign of murder. Kill lists clearly are not working when they are ever expanding.

ALmost no American would tolerate almost anything we do in other countries being done to us.

That's part of our arrogant reputation and image in the world.

[CowboyBob]

Nothing like using a drone to kill a 16 yo boy.

Nothing like an invasion of a hundred thousand troops to kill a hundred thousand children.

Nope, I was never in the military.

Why not? Chicken? I told you I would give you a ride to your nearest Army / Navy / Marine recruiter.

You talk tough but you're not.

OK, just 16 yo boys that Obama selectively wants to kill. Makes perfect sense now.

So killing 16 year old boys makes perfect sense to you?

[itsmejeff]

Why not? Chicken? I told you I would give you a ride to your nearest Army / Navy / Marine recruiter.

You talk tough but you're not.

Perhaps his IQ is greater than 30 or he was accepted into university?

People in the military are not tough. they are dumb psychopaths willing to kill anyone solely based on the belief that their nation is right.

[Rolyo85]

Perhaps his IQ is greater than 30 or he was accepted into university?

People in the military are not tough. they are dumb psychopaths willing to kill anyone solely based on the belief that their nation is right.

[tigerfan482]

Why are gays so intellectually dishonest and lacking in logical abilities? When did this stupid granfalloon become a group of apologists for murder and war? It is more sad because many of the intellectually differently advantageds supporting this program claim to be liberal.

Now that we're done with ad hominem, let's move on.

And there are rules to such threats, child. The police cannot burn your house down because they believe you murdered someone. They cannot shoot you if they think you stole something. There has to be an imminent threat to the safety of the officer or the public. Obama does not believe in that. His administration says that anyone is threat regardless of the evidence to show that.

Constitutional protections do exist for those who are threat to others. Are you differently intellectually advantaged? Murderers have trial. They do not just shoot them wherever they are found. They are not even killed after trial in most cases.

First off old geezer, I am not your child. Second, al-Awlaki has been materially tied to numerous people who either attacked or attempted to attack Americans both here and overseas. That made him an imminent threat. I can stand with a gun to your head and you would be in imminent danger. I could stand there 1 minute or 30 years, and unless I either shoot you, drop my weapon, or am shot myself, you will still be in imminent danger during that whole period. al-Awlaki showed that he was willing to shoot and wasn't going to drop the weapon, so we did what would neutralize the threat - took him out. This guy was an imminent threat to the American public and was handled as such, your opinions not withstanding.

As stated before, Constitutional protections extend only to the point where they do not interfere with the rights of others. If one person's actions are violating the rights of another, including their right to life, then their rights are no longer in effect. Murderers who are caught not threatening people are sent to trial. Murderers caught in the process of murdering or attempting to murder people are generally killed on the spot.

His son had not been in contact with him for over 2 years. He died two weeks after his father. It was a separate strike. The US government claimed that Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was a "military-age male" so it could kill him--remember how he was a 21 year old male in reports? He was collateral damage for a strike against a known terororist. That was Ibrahim al-Banna. It was reported that he was killed in the strike. Turns out that we was not. al-Banna was not even there. As such, there is no "official" record of Abdulrahman's death. If he was a terrorist, then the US government would point out those links. It chooses to ignore the death because there is no evidence that any of those killed had any links to any terrorist group.

There is no reliable media source anywhere saying that al-Banna is still alive. Both the US and Yemeni governments have verified his death in that airstrike. The only ones saying he is not dead is an al Qaeda offshoot group but have shown nothing to indicate he is not dead. So yes, if you hang out with terrorists, you get killed. al Qaeda is a terrorist organization. This target was the media chief of that organization. Thus, this target was a terro

Bullshit. The drone program initially was attacking high level targets, but it has since moved on to killing low level foot soldiers and those suspected of being involved with terrorism. Or just being close to it. The US government kills under the presumption that people near suspected terrorists are up to no good. Or people doing things that may be bad. A group of people gathered? Blow that shit up. Kill them. They are a threat to your safety and liberty.

Cowardly? Cowardly is giving high school dropouts remote controlled weapons and having them bomb weddings. Cowardly is killing civilians. Americans are clearly at least as cowardly as those they are fighting--possibly more so.

The drone program still targets high level and active participants in terrorist organizations. It does not target foot soldiers, as they are more useful to exploit to get to higher targets. It would be nice for you to understand how the system works before attempting to cry out against it. The people around suspected terrorists die because they are around a suspected terrorist when a missile is shot at them. They are not targeted by the US, but missiles do produce a blast radius, which is why it is never a good idea to hang out with terrorists. So a group of people gathered? No don't blow them up. But a known terrorist hanging out with a group of people? Yes, blow that shit up.

And no. Cowardly is sending children in to a market or a military base with bombs strapped to them. Cowardly is firing on US troops and then hiding in a school, hospital or residential area in the hopes of not getting attacked back. Cowardly is hiding in a cave and sending poor, uneducated people out to fly airplanes into buildings to kill innocent people. If they want to fight us face-to-face, America will welcome them to the battlefield. If they want to hide in their caves and remote tribal regions where they think they are safe, they better get used to having missiles fired at them.

Child, Yemen and Somalia are not battlefields. Yemen was only allowed because the former ruler, who was killing his own people already, allowed the US in. Pakistan is only allowed because Pakistan has not said no. Pakistan does not authorize drone strikes. It did not even allow them. It acknowledged requests for air space. That is it.

If those countries don't want our help, they are free to ask us to leave. They have solicited help from the US. For someone who knows absolutely nothing of what goes on behind the scenes, you sure to pretend to have enough insight to make these sweeping judgments.

Rule of law, child. Rule of law. This is the liberal position. Troglodytes kill first and ask questions later. The US is supposed be about democracy. Trials. Rights. It is not. It is a bunch of blood thirsty ignoramuses. If Anwar Al-awlaki was guilty of some crime and some super terrorist, then the evidence against him should be presented. The attempt should be made to capture him. They knew where he was. Yemen was complicit in US fighting against him. No attempt to capture this terrorist mastermind to get information about his future attacks? Really?

Again, he had rights (including first amendment rights to oppose the US and its policies).

So you are in favor of someone being able to break the law and/or threaten others with impunity as long as they are able to evade capture? You are in favor of people arranging multiple terrorist attacks and for those attempts to keep coming as long as the perpetrator doesn't show up to a trial? No one has a first amendment right to do harm to others, either through direct involvement, organizational and financial support, or through verbal encouragement. The Supreme Court has ruled free speech rights do not extend to situations in which people attempt to rally others to violence and lawful disorder. This guy was ruled an imminent threat by the Department of Justice because he was involved in continued attempts to do harm to other Americans. They are the folks given the power to issue legal opinions within the framework of the Constitution and past Supreme Court rulings. They issued their opinion and the President acted on it. Until the Supreme Court rules that unconstitutional, then it stands as the practice of the military.

As for anything else you wrote, they are nothing but personal attacks and name calling. You did have some points that could be considered academic, but your continued use of words like "child" to attempt to elevate yourself to some superior intellectual stance while issuing ad hominem attacks to attempt to somehow weaken your opponents position indicate that you really have no good grasp of the material you are trying to argue and instead just resort to fallacious statements with the false idea that it somehow strengthens your hand.

[itsmejeff]

Second, al-Awlaki has been materially tied to numerous people who either attacked or attempted to attack Americans both here and overseas. That made him an imminent threat. I can stand with a gun to your head and you would be in imminent danger.

There are definitions of imminence. It is not a made up concept. you would not understand, but there is a thing referred to as US law. There is also international law.

As stated before, Constitutional protections extend only to the point where they do not interfere with the rights of others. If one person's actions are violating the rights of another, including their right to life, then their rights are no longer in effect. Murderers who are caught not threatening people are sent to trial. Murderers caught in the process of murdering or attempting to murder people are generally killed on the spot.

The allegations against al-Awlaki are weak at best (from information released). This terrorist mastermind dined at the Pentagon following 9.11. His status as an al-Qaeda agent was not very high. He was virtually unknown before the US wanted him dead (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/20/op...nsen.html?_r=0). He became very scary because of his contact with Americans who committed crimes or attempted them. He spoke English rather well, so he could theoretically "radicalize" other Americans.

Murderers are not killed on the spot. Do you get your knowledge of law enforcement from broadcast cop shows?

There is no reliable media source anywhere saying that al-Banna is still alive. Both the US and Yemeni governments have verified his death in that airstrike.

He may be dead. It is unknown. There was no confirmation of his death (there usually isn't; few are identified after strikes). It ultimately does not matter. The US killed youths because of it suspected that a terrorist was there. It had other opportunities, but had no trouble killing children. Not surprising, CIA officials have stated that many of the dead cannot be identified. They are presumed to be terrorists until evidence says otherwise.
[quote]The drone program still targets high level and active participants in terrorist organizations. It does not target foot soldiers, as they are more useful to exploit to get to higher targets. It would be nice for you to understand how the system works before attempting to cry out against it.[\quote]
Huh-wut? That is not what the news says. http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...3YQ_story.html

And no. Cowardly is sending children in to a market or a military base with bombs strapped to them.

Cowardly is also killing people you think may be bad and hiding behind your bloated military when the UN comes.

If those countries don't want our help, they are free to ask us to leave. They have solicited help from the US. For someone who knows absolutely nothing of what goes on behind the scenes, you sure to pretend to have enough insight to make these sweeping judgments.

Pakistan is the best example here. It does not allow US drone strikes. It has repeatedly told the US to change its policy. Pakistani leaders are under ever increasing pressure to force change (nearly three-quarters of Pakistani people see the US as the enemy). Nothing changes. The US does not listen. It murders. Its pathetic people cheer.

So you are in favor of someone being able to break the law and/or threaten others with impunity as long as they are able to evade capture? You are in favor of people arranging multiple terrorist attacks and for those attempts to keep coming as long as the perpetrator doesn't show up to a trial? No one has a first amendment right to do harm to others, either through direct involvement, organizational and financial support, or through verbal encouragement. The Supreme Court has ruled free speech rights do not extend to situations in which people attempt to rally others to violence and lawful disorder. This guy was ruled an imminent threat by the Department of Justice because he was involved in continued attempts to do harm to other Americans. They are the folks given the power to issue legal opinions within the framework of the Constitution and past Supreme Court rulings. They issued their opinion and the President acted on it. Until the Supreme Court rules that unconstitutional, then it stands as the practice of the military.

The US does not try to apprehend US citizens affiliated with terrorists groups. Look up news stories. There are none. The US either ignores (for very low level people) or murders.

Supreme court justification does not make it right. Not that it will even be considered. The DoJ memo cites supreme court cases that do not support its position. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld resulted in rights to due process being protected. It did not give the US a blanket approval to act with impunity.

I respond in a way that is appropriate to the level of argument posed by the individual to whom I am responding.

[xbuzzerx]

Pakistan is the best example here. It does not allow US drone strikes. It has repeatedly told the US to change its policy. Pakistani leaders are under ever increasing pressure to force change (nearly three-quarters of Pakistani people see the US as the enemy). Nothing changes. The US does not listen. It murders. Its pathetic people cheer.

We're talking about the country that facilitated the movements and harboring of Osama Bin Laden, in fairness. Do you not feel the U.S. should have pursued Bin Laden?

[itsmejeff]

We're talking about the country that facilitated the movements and harboring of Osama Bin Laden, in fairness. Do you not feel the U.S. should have pursued Bin Laden?

Allegedly. And we are also discussing a nation that is being bombed and invaded by a nation that has a global war of terror. On terror. Whatever.

bin Laden was a boogedyman. His post 9/11 role was exaggerated, as was his importance. From 2004 on, when he took credit for 9.11, public support for him had plummeted. He lost his appeal as a wrongly accused figure. People really did not like his actions.

and it was not about safety or security. It was about revenge and a "success" for a future campaign. He would never have been convicted for 9.11. The evidence was not there. He would have easily been convicted of the attack on the embassy in Kenya, but no one cares about that. Americans wanted "justice." that is only can come from killing (a death that was celebrated, even though, according to the story in the book released by that the guy, it was a war crime. Willfully killing an injured person--including combatants--is prohibited by international agreements).

[tigerfan482]

There are definitions of imminence. It is not a made up concept. you would not understand, but there is a thing referred to as US law. There is also international law.

I do understand. Imminence does have a legal definition, and it varies depending on how it is used. You know who in the government is charged with interpreting the laws within the confines of the Constitution, the USC, and past Supreme Court decisions? (Hint: it's not you.) It's the Department of Justice who just so happened to have given the President the legal opinion that continued terrorist actions or attempted actions constitute an imminent threat.

The allegations against al-Awlaki are weak at best (from information released). This terrorist mastermind dined at the Pentagon following 9.11. His status as an al-Qaeda agent was not very high. He was virtually unknown before the US wanted him dead (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/20/op...nsen.html?_r=0). He became very scary because of his contact with Americans who committed crimes or attempted them. He spoke English rather well, so he could theoretically "radicalize" other Americans.[

Murderers are not killed on the spot. Do you get your knowledge of law enforcement from broadcast cop shows?

You must be talking about this article:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/20...ntagon-months/
As you can see, he was invited as an effort to reach out to the Muslim community. The FBI did not share the intelligence they had on him with the Pentagon. It has the laundry list of terrorist attacks (including 9/11) he has been linked to. These aren't mere coincidences that this guy just happened to know and talk to these terrorists all of the time. He was well known by those who were investigating him, but like just about any investigation, they don't dump all of the details onto the public for review and approval.

And yes, murderers who are an imminent threat to others are generally killed or severely wounded. I didn't say all murderers were. I think you need to go back and re-read what I

He may be dead. It is unknown. There was no confirmation of his death (there usually isn't; few are identified after strikes). It ultimately does not matter. The US killed youths because of it suspected that a terrorist was there. It had other opportunities, but had no trouble killing children. Not surprising, CIA officials have stated that many of the dead cannot be identified. They are presumed to be terrorists until evidence says otherwise.

That's funny since both the US and Yemeni governments said he was killed in the airstrike. It's also funny because if there was no way to identify the bodies, how do they know everyone else killed was a youth? How do you know the US had other opportunities? How do you know al-Awlaki's son wasn't consorting with terrorists (it seems likely given he was killed with one)? You seem to be making a lot of wild guesses based on your personal biases with nothing but opinion pieces to back them up.

Huh-wut? That is not what the news says. http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...3YQ_story.html

It also says at the end of that article that US sources say that the strikes are hitting important al-Qaeda operatives. It also states that the data they use to make these claims is "a blurry picture at best" based mostly on Pakistani news claims and anonymous US sources. Basically, like any good tort doctor, you can find an article anywhere to support the point you want to make. However, I would try to find one that doesn't admit in the article the data and sources they used are "blurry at best."

Cowardly is also killing people you think may be bad and hiding behind your bloated military when the UN comes.

The UN? How did they even get into this? I've not seen one person charged with war crimes. Now I'm sure you'll come back with some response like "well they are too afraid to charge anyone with war crimes," but at that point, you seem to be going against your own stance of judging someone guilty before charges or a trial.

Pakistan is the best example here. It does not allow US drone strikes. It has repeatedly told the US to change its policy. Pakistani leaders are under ever increasing pressure to force change (nearly three-quarters of Pakistani people see the US as the enemy). Nothing changes. The US does not listen. It murders. Its pathetic people cheer.

How do you know what conversations go on between Pakistan and the US? I don't know if you know this, but after year 4 in Afghanistan, the Pakistani government went on this huge propaganda tear where they would publicly rebuke the US for anything it did in Pakistan but then turn around and ask for more help privately. Pakistan loves us blowing up their terrorists more than we do. It's less for them to deal with internally. They just have to maintain a public opposition so their new government isn't overthrown next year.

The US does not try to apprehend US citizens affiliated with terrorists groups. Look up news stories. There are none. The US either ignores (for very low level people) or murders.

Supreme court justification does not make it right. Not that it will even be considered. The DoJ memo cites supreme court cases that do not support its position. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld resulted in rights to due process being protected. It did not give the US a blanket approval to act with impunity.

I respond in a way that is appropriate to the level of argument posed by the individual to whom I am responding.

Supreme Court justification does make it right per the Constitution. You also misread the opinion in regards to the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. The Supreme Court did rule that the US Government has a right to detain US citizens as enemy combatants if so authorized by Congress, which it is in the Authorization for Use of Military Force. You should read the whole 16-page opinion and the whole of the referenced Supreme Court cases and not rely on the snippets used in various "news" sources.

I have provided you a well-thought out and adult-level argument. You have responded several times in childish ways, referring to me as child several times as well as using ad hominem attacks more than once. The onus is on you to act like an adult when someone speaks to you as one.

[xbuzzerx]

Allegedly. And we are also discussing a nation that is being bombed and invaded by a nation that has a global war of terror. On terror. Whatever.

bin Laden was a boogedyman. His post 9/11 role was exaggerated, as was his importance. From 2004 on, when he took credit for 9.11, public support for him had plummeted. He lost his appeal as a wrongly accused figure. People really did not like his actions.

and it was not about safety or security. It was about revenge and a "success" for a future campaign. He would never have been convicted for 9.11. The evidence was not there. He would have easily been convicted of the attack on the embassy in Kenya, but no one cares about that. Americans wanted "justice." that is only can come from killing (a death that was celebrated, even though, according to the story in the book released by that the guy, it was a war crime. Willfully killing an injured person--including combatants--is prohibited by international agreements).

.... I don't see how anything you've said is a reason he was not someone the U.S. had a duty or obligation to try to bring to justice. I mean yeah, I realize, his "usefulness" i.e. giving us another Pearl Harbor as the pretext for feeding Iraq to our military industrial complex, was at an end. But he still planned an event that killed 2 thousand people and the concept that we should have just let him wander around indefinitely is, at best, bizarre.

I can't help but notice that you did not answer my question. I guess it conflicted too much with your position of defending Pakistan's sovereignty in your anti-drone argument.

[itsmejeff]

You have provided nothing be apologetics and appeals to authority.

"B-b-but the DoJ says that killing is okay."
"There is no clear proof that the US is killing civilians."
"The drone strikes are effective; Pakistan are lying!"
"How do you know that he was not a terrorist?"

The government prevents information from being released. That is what it does. That is also why information is so hard to come by. News that is released provides for the

And regarding the young al-Awlaki. It is actually rather clear that he was not involved with terrorism. How? The government does not acknowledge his death. If he was bad, then it would state that. It does not. I does not have a record of his killing. It did when he was a 21 year old militant. Not so much now.

The UN has inquired into US military action since the beginning of the war on terror. Neither the Bush administration nor the Obama administration have been forthcoming with details. It is not the only government doing this either. Israel has refused cooperate with the UN over these strikes.

I get it. You believe that your shitty nation has a right to do whatever it wants. This is fine. It has the biggest guns. It can do whatever it wants. That does not make it any less evil. It does not make your any less complicit either. History will not look kindly on the US.

[xbuzzerx]

This is what 100,000 people looks like. This is approximately the number of people killed as a result of the Iraq War.

As we shriek and screech about how completely horrific the use of drones are perhaps it's worth using just a tiny bit of proportion to understand the cost of ground invasions in terms of a human price tag.

[Lefty]

This is a partial quote, NOT taken out of context,
it is exhibited as part and parcel of 'itsmejeff contributions
to CE&P and thus to the JUB/Jubbers.

Pakistan is the best example here. It does not allow US drone strikes. It has repeatedly told the US to change its policy. Pakistani leaders are under ever increasing pressure to force change (nearly three-quarters of Pakistani people see the US as the enemy). Nothing changes. The US does not listen. It murders. Its pathetic people cheer.

It is JMHO (based on his posts and his empty profile) that to all appearances he is a vicious
troll like entity that is incapable of making posts with out demeaning other members and
spewing his obvious and irrationally excessive hatred of the USA and its people.
It is not my place to recommend Banning of a member.

I have long eschewed the ignore function.
So, until he leaves or is banned,
I will scroll past any of his postings.

He seems to crave being anathema. JMHO.

[Jack Springer]

Gee .... that's the same amount that were killed during the Bosnian War. Anyone remember Bosnia?

The US conducted that war in drone-like action -- dropping bombs from high altitudes killing 100,000 people ... I'm sure many were women and children. I do know it's AWKWARD to talk about this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6228152.stm

This is what 100,000 people looks like. This is approximately the number of people killed as a result of the Iraq War.

As we shriek and screech about how completely horrific the use of drones are perhaps it's worth using just a tiny bit of proportion to understand the cost of ground invasions in terms of a human price tag.

[JayHawk]

Actually Bosnia was an excellent example of accomplishing the mission without over extending your mission. But I know it was a democratic leadership so must be bad... no accounting for the decades it takes military leaders to get to where they are in the food chain. However, you are completely correct Jack, had we possessed drone technology we could have killed much less to accomplish the same goal. Just imagine Jack if the greatest generation had drone. They might not have killed the millions of civilians that were bombed into oblivion.... might not.

I see we have a Bilderberg guy amongst us again....someone alert Ambrocious because allegedly Afghanistan was involved... lol. Amusing.

Chancey is back and with a new term for people.... yay or is that yawn??? yep yawn...

Lefty once again points out the sage truth. You may not think it is your place but don't hold your breath. If other members xenophobic rants get a voice at the table then so do the itinerant ramblings of a disgruntled and rejected conspiracy theorist. TBH lefty I dig that the ignorant can post and have a voice. It reminds me that those folks exist. I get to hear the right wing loons everyday because I live in Kansas, so i need a reminder of the left wing loons.

[tigerfan482]

You have provided nothing be apologetics and appeals to authority.

"B-b-but the DoJ says that killing is okay."
"There is no clear proof that the US is killing civilians."
"The drone strikes are effective; Pakistan are lying!"
"How do you know that he was not a terrorist?"

The government prevents information from being released. That is what it does. That is also why information is so hard to come by. News that is released provides for the

And regarding the young al-Awlaki. It is actually rather clear that he was not involved with terrorism. How? The government does not acknowledge his death. If he was bad, then it would state that. It does not. I does not have a record of his killing. It did when he was a 21 year old militant. Not so much now.

The UN has inquired into US military action since the beginning of the war on terror. Neither the Bush administration nor the Obama administration have been forthcoming with details. It is not the only government doing this either. Israel has refused cooperate with the UN over these strikes.

I get it. You believe that your shitty nation has a right to do whatever it wants. This is fine. It has the biggest guns. It can do whatever it wants. That does not make it any less evil. It does not make your any less complicit either. History will not look kindly on the US.

So your basic argument is that because there is a lack of information, it supports your position that everything you say is right? At least I base my opinion on facts that have come out. Everything I have claimed and the information I have based my claims on is either codified in US law or has been corroborated by multiple sources. It is fallacious to say that you must be right because there is no evidence you have proving you wrong.

The US keeps secrets to protect its methods and because there are things the public doesn't need to know. What methods they use to locate, target, and terminate people that are enemies on a battlefield doesn't need to be known by everyone. There is nothing you or anyone else could do with that information.

Your argument regarding al-Awlaki's son doesn't even make sense. It is clear he wasn't involved in terrorism because the government didn't acknowledge his death (which it did by the way, which is why you have your quotes you use talking about responsible fathers and all of that)?

And yes, I do believe that my nation should be able to defend itself against those that wish to do it harm without having to jump through endless hoops and red tape. If someone who is a stated member of a terrorist organization hiding in another country is a threat to the nation, then it should be the expectation that that person should be able to be eliminated as a threat without having to go through years of trials or multiple attempts to apprehend them from hostile areas.