HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Flashback: Russ Feingold ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:05 AM

Flashback: Russ Feingold 'Pleased' Anwar Al-Awlaki Was Taken Out By Drone Strike

Russ Feingold 'Pleased' Anwar Al-Awlaki Was Taken Out By Drone Strike

WASHINGTON -- Former Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold, whose lone vote against the Patriot Act made him a hero among civil libertarians, said he has no problem with the killing of U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in a drone attack in Yemen last fall.

"I'm very pleased that he was taken out," said Feingold, who spoke to The Huffington Post ahead of the Tuesday release of his new book, "While America Sleeps." "I do believe he was part and parcel of al Qaeda. I do think it is legitimate to go after al Qaeda operatives."

The clandestine assassination of an American citizen without a trial sparked a legal and moral debate last year that echoed a similar one after 9/11 as lawmakers drafted the now controversial Patriot Act. A secret Obama administration memo leaked soon after the strike concluded that Awlaki could be legally targeted if it was not possible to capture him alive.

Even as he told The Huffington Post in an interview that "Americans have metaphorically gone back to sleep when it comes to constitutional intrusions in the name of fighting terrorism," the former member of the Senate Intelligence Committee made clear that in Awlaki's case, exceptions should be made.

- more -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/22/russ-feingold-anwar-al-awlaki_n_1291593.html


59 replies, 2750 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 59 replies Author Time Post
Reply Flashback: Russ Feingold 'Pleased' Anwar Al-Awlaki Was Taken Out By Drone Strike (Original post)
ProSense Feb 2013 OP
MotherPetrie Feb 2013 #1
OnyxCollie Feb 2013 #7
Bonobo Feb 2013 #2
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #53
JI7 Feb 2013 #3
Honeycombe8 Feb 2013 #4
MrSlayer Feb 2013 #5
ProSense Feb 2013 #11
The Magistrate Feb 2013 #6
Historic NY Feb 2013 #21
Bake Feb 2013 #44
Tarheel_Dem Feb 2013 #8
freshwest Feb 2013 #17
EastKYLiberal Feb 2013 #19
Tarheel_Dem Feb 2013 #25
tama Feb 2013 #57
SomethingFishy Feb 2013 #56
Tarheel_Dem Feb 2013 #58
rhett o rick Feb 2013 #9
ProSense Feb 2013 #10
rhett o rick Feb 2013 #12
ProSense Feb 2013 #13
rhett o rick Feb 2013 #14
ProSense Feb 2013 #15
rhett o rick Feb 2013 #28
Demo_Chris Feb 2013 #16
Hulk Feb 2013 #18
EastKYLiberal Feb 2013 #20
Bake Feb 2013 #45
ProSense Feb 2013 #22
FSogol Feb 2013 #23
choie Feb 2013 #24
ProSense Feb 2013 #26
ljm2002 Feb 2013 #27
ProSense Feb 2013 #29
ljm2002 Feb 2013 #31
ProSense Feb 2013 #32
ljm2002 Feb 2013 #34
ProSense Feb 2013 #36
ljm2002 Feb 2013 #38
WinkyDink Feb 2013 #30
whatchamacallit Feb 2013 #33
ProSense Feb 2013 #35
whatchamacallit Feb 2013 #37
ProSense Feb 2013 #39
whatchamacallit Feb 2013 #40
ProSense Feb 2013 #41
whatchamacallit Feb 2013 #43
ProSense Feb 2013 #46
whatchamacallit Feb 2013 #48
ProSense Feb 2013 #49
whatchamacallit Feb 2013 #51
ProSense Feb 2013 #52
ProSense Feb 2013 #42
DevonRex Feb 2013 #54
whatchamacallit Feb 2013 #55
JI7 Feb 2013 #47
arely staircase Feb 2013 #50
Floyd_Gondolli Feb 2013 #59

Response to ProSense (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:18 AM

1. Well, Russ, you can go back to sleep.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:35 AM

7. Feingold said that the attack on Anwar Al Awlaki was "not necessarily wrong"

and that it would be permissible only under very narrow circumstances, i.e., if there were no other way to get him.

Feingold says that the key question to make it legal (which has yet to be litigated) was whether or not it was true that there was no other way to get him.
http://current.com/shows/the-young-turks/videos/russ-feingold-polls-well-against-wisc-gov-walker-but-hes-not-running-for-office-in-next-2-years

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:29 AM

2. It's too bad you can't see the larger picture.

It is much bigger than just one person and bigger, even, than one president.

It is about the history of the United States and about the identity of every American when they leave US soil and have to be ambassadors of their country on the international stage.

It is about the future. It is about the past. It is about America's moral authority (what little it can still claim to have).

You may gain some vague points on the internets for reductionistic thinking, but it is transparent and frankly small-minded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:20 PM

53. What moral authority?

That moral authority exists only in the minds of the American people. The people of other nations recognize us for what we are, the biggest bully on the block.

And no, I'm not defending the killing of American citizens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:30 AM

3. is it less bad if one isn't an american ?

that seems to be the argument from some.

what Obama is doing is how the "war on terror" should have been from the start rather than what has happened in iraq and afghanistan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:31 AM

4. He apparently doesn't see the killing of the AQ opertive as a constitutional intrusion.

It's as simple as that.

Reasonable people seem to differ in their opinion on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:32 AM

5. Who is going to sympathize with a terrorist?

 

I certainly don't care about that asshole being killed. Nor do I care about bin Laden or anyone associated with him. We're long past the point of even pretending we're about justice or law. We're about protecting the interests of the owners of this country, period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #5)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:01 AM

11. Not me. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:33 AM

6. I Agree With Sen. Feingold, Ma'am

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #6)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 05:11 AM

21. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #6)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 05:49 PM

44. Yes. i also agree with the Senator.



Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:49 AM

8. The Liberal-Libertarian hybrid has gone haywire again. Is there any wonder....

why liberals can't get things done? I mean, they move from one shiny object to the next, and accomplish nothing. While this story may be important to some, what happened to the uproar about gun violence? Did we pass a new law yet? And what about the hot burning issue of immigration reform? All done?

And why is it that the assholes who shoot little girls in the face, merely because they want an education, get a pass? You know, the dickwads who embed themselves among women & children, because they're fucking cowards?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #8)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:46 AM

17. Libertarians don't care about that stuff, it's all about bashin Obama here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #8)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 04:18 AM

19. Someone might revoke their liberal card if they don't show a proper amount of outrage...

 

I'm more concerned about domestic policies like health care, minimum wage, a progressive income tax, the environment, etc...

When I'm struggling in this world, the least of my concerns is the US military swatting flies in regions I can't pronounce.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EastKYLiberal (Reply #19)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 11:44 AM

25. Exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EastKYLiberal (Reply #19)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:53 PM

57. And

 

what you do to least of us, you do to me.

By which I mean heart felt thanks for your honesty, that's more than many here are capable of. There's hope in honesty, much less in denial and projection and shifting blame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #8)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:35 PM

56. So I'm only allowed to be outraged

at little guns. Huge ones are ok since they aren't shooting up schools in Connecticut. Got it...

I can only be outraged at one thing at a time. Got it....

Because I am just as outraged at the mass killings we engage in overseas, I am giving the guy who shot a little girl in the face a pass. Got it....

When I see a shiny object I must switch direction. Got it...

When I post on DU I must discuss every single issue on my mind that day or someone may think I'm a liberal-libertarian hybrid gone haywire. Got it....

I'm glad you laid these rules out for me. I had no idea they existed. It's not easy being a liberal these days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SomethingFishy (Reply #56)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 01:27 PM

58. Call me when the president breaks the law. Until then,,




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:50 AM

9. Your posts are like a game. What is her point? I know, I know, since Russ Feingold is ok with

drone strikes then it must be cool.

Dick Cheney is also ecstatic with drone killing. He wishes he had that capability when he was president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:54 AM

10. Do you

"Dick Cheney is also ecstatic with drone killing. He wishes he had that capability when he was president. "

...really know what you're talking about (because Bush used drones)?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #10)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:02 AM

12. Oh plezzzzz. Your adoration is clouding your judgement.

Of course Bush used drones for a few months at the end of his reign. So? What's your point? That because Bush used them for a couple of months justifies Pres Obama's use?

Here's a question for you. Do you support the president's plan to use drones to kill on American soil?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #12)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:07 AM

13. My "adoration" of Feingold?

"Of course Bush used drones for a few months at the end of his reign."

Clearly you don't know.

The United States government has made hundreds of attacks on targets in northwest Pakistan since 2004 using drones (unmanned aerial vehicles) controlled by the Central Intelligence Agency's Special Activities Division.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #13)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:16 AM

14. And your point is???????????

"The more expansive target set was originally approved in the final months of the Bush administration in late 2008, but has been stepped up under the Obama White House, the official said. It is seen as a key strategy to help protect the growing number of U.S. forces in neighboring Afghanistan from insurgents operating in Pakistan's border region."

http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/04/obama-administrations-greater-use-of-drones-goes-back-to-bush-era/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #14)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:34 AM

15. So you took a point about 2008 to claim:

"Of course Bush used drones for a few months at the end of his reign"

My point is that's inaccurate, and the snip you posted doesn't make the above statement true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #15)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:17 PM

28. Back to your point. Are you saying that because

Bush did it, it's cool? American drone attacks in sovereign nations is justifiable? Drones patrolling skies in America is justifiable?

I believe Bush only used drones in the area of Afghanistan and Pakistan where we are engaged in war. I believe Pres Obama has used them in other sovereign nations like Yemen. I may be wrong. Now it appears the administration is gearing up to allow drones to be used on American soil for surveillance, at least at first. Looks like a slippery slope to me.

I believe John Brennan interprets the Authorization to Use Military Force to allow the president to direct drone strikes in any country. Now to me, that's going way to far.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:41 AM

16. I am pleased this guy is gone as well. Doesn't mean I am pleased with this new position

 

I was also pleased to learn the right wing kidnapper was wiped out. But that does not mean I support the police gunning down suspects without a trial (not saying that's what happened there, just making a point).

So yes, good deal, an actual terrorist is dead. Bad deal that our President now feels the government has the legal authority to kill anyone anywhere, with no oversight and no accountability.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:48 AM

18. When the evidence is overwhelming...

...and the choice is to rish other American lives to go in and get him; yes, I'm for drones.

I accept that we are at war with these savages - al Qaeda - who seem very comfortable in taking out hundreds if not thousands of innocent men, women and children to further their cause. I'm not eager to write off collateral damage, and see innocent men, women and children die in the act; but let's get a little realistic here. Would you rather the enemy lives, plots and continues their ruthless murder and mayhem until we are willing to send in a dozen or more US military who may be taken out, may cause as much or more collateral damage in their act, and may or may not succeed?
This is a complex issue. But when you have everything pointing to al Qaeda determined to strike "us" or other innocent lives to further their radical agenda - then I'm in favor of drones - Americans or not. Al Qaeda has declared war and acted in accordance with that gesture. Innocent lives are going to be lost. We may not like it, and we may not like the idea that "an American" wasn't brought to justice in a court room; but I'm not opposed to a drone strike to take the SOB's out....hopefully with no collateral damage, and hopefully only the bad guys. But that's a wee bit naive to expect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hulk (Reply #18)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 04:20 AM

20. Finally, some goddamn common sense on DU... nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hulk (Reply #18)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 05:51 PM

45. Whoomp there it is!

YOu said a mouthful. Well done.

Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 08:57 AM

22. From Senator Wyden's statement

As I and ten other senators told the President yesterday, if individual Americans choose to take up arms against the United States, there will clearly be some circumstances in which the President has the authority to use lethal force against those Americans, just as President Lincoln had the authority to use force against the Confederate Army during the Civil War. At the same time, it is vitally important for Congress and the American public to have a full understanding of how the executive branch interprets this authority, so that Congress and the public can decide whether the President’s power to deliberately kill American citizens is subject to appropriate limitations and safeguards. Every American has the right to know when their government believes that it is allowed to kill them.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022320280
Beyond that precedent, it appears that the questions are designed to clarify the process and, primarily, to ensure that it's actually targeting people who take up arms against the U.S.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 09:13 AM

23. Same here. Don't want to be killed by the Government? Don't be in a

war zone helping the people we are fighting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 11:39 AM

24. I don't give a damn

if Bernie Sanders approved of it - IT IS WRONG.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to choie (Reply #24)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 11:44 AM

26. It's a good thing

"I don't give a damn if Bernie Sanders approved of it - IT IS WRONG."

...that the OP isn't demanding anyone agree with Feingold.

The drone white paper sparked a debate.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022321400

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:28 PM

27. And?

So because Russ Feingold liked the outcome of a particular drone strike, because he thought this was one exception worth making, the rest of us liberals should just sit down and STFU as there is nothing left to debate on the issue of drones?

Puhleeze.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ljm2002 (Reply #27)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:58 PM

29. Please,

"So because Russ Feingold liked the outcome of a particular drone strike, because he thought this was one exception worth making, the rest of us liberals should just sit down and STFU as there is nothing left to debate on the issue of drones?"

...tell me where the hell it says any such thing in the OP. Is it a feel-good mechanism to imagine that people are telling you to STFU?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #29)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:13 PM

31. Oh, I see...

...so you posted Feingold's position on this matter, without adding any commentary of your own, just to engage in a reasoned debate? It's a straight-up argument from authority, and again, since you did not add any of your own opinions I did indeed feel free to posit your motive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ljm2002 (Reply #31)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:16 PM

32. Yes,

"so you posted Feingold's position on this matter, without adding any commentary of your own, just to engage in a reasoned debate?"

...I posted it. Is there a rule that Feingold's statements should not be posted? Who else: Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Howard Dean, the President?

Is there a list, and if so, can you please provide it. Otherwise, I think your comment is ridiculous and you maybe should have kept it to yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #32)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:26 PM

34. Did I say anything about a rule?

Please show me where I mentioned any list, or told you you cannot post something.

Oh and way to prove my original point. "I think your comment is ridiculous and you maybe should have kept it to yourself."

Translation: Sit down and STFU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ljm2002 (Reply #34)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:29 PM

36. LOL!

I've been silenced!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #36)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:31 PM

38. Judging by your post count...

...I must say that is a truly ridiculous comment, even if made in jest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:07 PM

30. "I do believe"....I do think...." I wonder why he did not say "I KNOW....."?

*sarcasm

P.S. Russ's extra, unnecessary, and emphatic "do" within his verbs shows a psychological inability to, for lack of a better word, commit to his own assertions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:24 PM

33. Yes, trot out the unfortunate opinion of a democrat in hope of stifling dissent

Maybe you figure this works because that's all it would take to get you to compromise your principles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #33)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:27 PM

35. Damn, it isn't working.

Oh well, back to the drawing board.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #35)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:30 PM

37. Yes

thankfully it's not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #37)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:37 PM

39. Don't you love it

when you create your own straw man and then kill it!

What a super great feeling!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #39)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:40 PM

40. Straw Man? Why did you post Feingold's opinion

if not as support for the policy? You only fool yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #40)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:46 PM

41. Because I wanted to?

"Why did you post Feingold's opinion if not as support for the policy? You only fool yourself."

I also happen to agree with him, but evidently you thought long and hard to expose my sinister intentions.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #41)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:48 PM

43. I don't believe your intentions are sinister

just misguided by blind fealty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #43)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 05:55 PM

46. Well, gee

"just misguided by blind fealty."

...you apparently know me, poor little "misguided" me, so well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #46)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:04 PM

48. It only took

93,998 posts

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #48)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:07 PM

49. Question:

"It only took 93,998 posts"

...How many other posters are you obsessed with?

I'd appreciate having groupies if I were a rock star.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #49)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:17 PM

51. Don't flatter yourself

I'm not obsessed with you, it's just near impossible to avoid you. Someone who builds such a big target can't bemoan the fire it draws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #51)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:18 PM

52. "I'm not obsessed with you, it's just near impossible to avoid you."

Come again?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #40)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:47 PM

42. Hey,

do you mind exposing me in this thread:

ACLU Court Filing Argues for Judicial Review of U.S. Targeted Killings of Americans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022322698



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #33)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:21 PM

54. Funny how you're still talking despite all that stifling.

Maybe this will work better.



Did I do that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #54)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:24 PM

55. That's because the technique

only works on weak minded party loyalists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:00 PM

47. doesn't Howard Dean also support the use of Drones

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:09 PM

50. i agree with feingold most of the time

this is one of those times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 01:19 PM

59. I guess all of the sudden Feingold is a cretin

 

This little revelation must be somewhat disturbing for those here who have long held him up as the keeper of liberal values.

Personally, I think it's a fucking riot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread