General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsApparently this is the breaking point,
Where you have to decide if you put Country and Constitution ahead of Party and Politics.
The release of the drone memo shows that the Obama administration is taking upon itself the same sort of unConstitutional power that Bush grabbed for when he enacted the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war and endorsed torture.
The vast majority of Democrats and liberals righteously damned Bushboy for his unConstitutional power grab. But now, when Obama is making the same sort of unConstitutional power grab with his policy of extrajudicial killing, we are starting to see a rift open and widen.
Many, most are outraged at this power grab, just as they were when Bushboy made his powergrab. These people are putting Country and Constitution above Party and Politics. But it amazes me how some folks, folks who damned Bushboy's power grab, are now putting Party and Politics above Country and Constitution, condoning this unConstitutional power grab by the Obama administration.
So this is the breaking point, the point where we find out whose moral compass is functioning, the point where we find out who puts Country and Constitution ahead of Party and Politics. For those who choose the former, I congratulate you. For those who choose the latter, well, at the very least I pity you. It is hard to go through life without a moral compass, equally hard to be taken seriously since that is the case.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)Would the Congress allow it? Would the CIA and military shadow government obey orders to stop?
lark
(23,237 posts)This is the presidents program, he approves the strikes. Congress didn't authorize this or start this, President Obama took a fledgling program under Bush and made it much much bigger. Don't think the CIA is involved, military, yes. Obama controls the military too, by picking Secty of Defense and Joint Chief of Staff.
loudsue
(14,087 posts)Even bush didn't get his way, or he would have been taken out.
The United States is run by the military. Look at where our tax dollars go. Any facade of a civilian government is by orchestration.
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)that we only wave the constitution like a flag when it suits our agenda....
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)Last edited Wed Feb 6, 2013, 08:16 PM - Edit history (1)
eom
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)"...So this is the breaking point, the point where we find out whose moral compass is functioning, the point where we find out who puts Country and Constitution ahead of Party and Politics. For those who choose the former, I congratulate you. For those who choose the latter, well, at the very least I pity you. It is hard to go through life without a moral compass, equally hard to be taken seriously since that is the case. "
Yep, black and white..it's always black and white.
Your either with us or against us.
Sort of like the Republican party.
No..wishy washy stuff like..."Ok and our choice was, was insane, egomania-driven plutocrat (Romney) or Obama, essentially a centrist, moderate Republican"
And so our options are? What, vote Republican because our guy is offing Americans in combat theaters with drones?
FSogol
(45,614 posts)hear it today. So far, I've seen it twice.
Although, I do agree with the "hard to be taken seriously" term.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)and decency.
Do you really support extrajudicial killing based on decree?
Think about the dark hole you are dwelling in. This is your life and soul, my friend.
FSogol
(45,614 posts)I'll vote the straight Democratic Party ticket in 2014 without any problems or twinge of conscious. People get killed in wars. I wish wars didn't happen, but they do.
Dark holes, life, souls? Keep patting yourself on the back. In a week or two, the bash Obama crowd will be talking of impeachment. Then we can discuss who is in the wrong party.
randome
(34,845 posts)My eyes!
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)FSogol
(45,614 posts)Everyone who disagrees must be a nazi!
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)Of being a nazi? That's projection of the highest order.
The point is that throughout history people have lent blind faith and support to political parties, countries, leaders, etc without questioning means, which has often led to terrible, disastrous results. If a leader does things "for the good of a cause or country or people", but the means he/she uses to attain whatever goal flies in the face of common decency, morality and/or the law, I don't give a shit what affiliation said leader attaches their name to, it's just fucking wrong and needs to be called out.
truth2power
(8,219 posts)are trying to minimize this, simply because it's a Democrat doing it. Amazing!
Check your moral compass at the door.
mythology
(9,527 posts)The comparison of good Germans and Hitler is pretty blatantly saying that the DUer would have supported Hitler. Or is there some other Hitler I'm unaware of.
There's a reason that it's considered out of bounds to compare people to Nazis. If somebody can't debate without resorting to name calling like that, it's hard to take them seriously.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Yes, torture and extrajudicial killing will get you a special place in Hell.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Constitution has been suspended by the various provisions of the Patriot Act, and also by the NDAA.
I am glad you are upset about it, as am I, but right now, our Constitutional rights are worth less than the 5 cent candy I just popped in my mouth.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)he's talking about hypocracy - if it was bad when bush did it should be bad now
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)USE IT AGAINST 99% of the WORLD in order to enrich themselves alone--I am not willing to remove support for President Obama by giving in to absolutist demands for unrealistic vows of loyalty.
tama
(9,137 posts)it's not just the "pukes" of global society, the US etc. western urban liberal middle class is just as dependent from global neoliberalism and neocolonialism and "liberal" neoliberals. Globally Blobally US urban middle class is the 1%.
And we got to learn to live within means, as global society, as we have been globalized by forces bigger than us. And that means that even US liberals can't keep on living in fantasy bubble of blaming the "other party" for everything.
The reality we live in is that there is global revolution going on against the national, partisan, religious etc. barriers that divide and conquer us. Tactical situational voting for "lesser evil" is one thing, selling your soul to partisan divisiveness and projection of all evil to the "other" party and denial of responsibility another thing.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I am completely opposed to a president assuming the power to decide on an individual basis who gets droned or not outside a theater of war.
But the answer is not to remove Obama, the answer is to establish a procedure that divides the responsibility and decision-making process so that there are checks and balances in place and the authority over drone use cannot be arbitrarily exercised by the President and a group of his advisers. We need some sort of independent or multi- or bi-partisan body that reviews the President's decisions and OKs them -- something like the FISA Court was supposed to be with regard to eavesdropping.
Nothing against Obama, but the authority to decide who dies in a drone strike outside an actual geographical area designated as an area of war should be shared and reviewed. It should not just be one person plus that person's appointees and certainly not be just the executive branch.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)depending on whether or not a Democrat is in office. How do you feel about that?
Do you support the presidents use of drones? Are you trying to rationalize that Pres Obama's drone policies are ok because we had no other choice last Nov?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I doubt most Democrats had a problem with Bush using drones to attack terrorists. But this is a canard that keeps being floated.
I didnt disagree when Bush did it, and I dont disagree now that Obama is doing it.
I had a problem with an illegal war that was a war crime. I had a problem with stealing the election. I had a problem with funneling more money to the rich at the expense of the 99%. I did not have a problem with drones nor do I suspect a large majority of the Democratic electorate.
NOVA_Dem
(620 posts)It's not ok to torture but it is ok to kill without due process?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)NOVA_Dem
(620 posts)but it's ok to assassinate an american citizen abroad without requiring proof or judicial review.
That doesn't make sense to me.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)So our choice is to send in special ops to get them or use a drone. If you use spec ops, you can count on dozens or perhaps hundreds dead, including probably the target.
If we do nothing, the person continues to help plan terrorist operations against us and helps recruit more people into Al Qaeda.
You make the call.
NOVA_Dem
(620 posts)And we still haven't talked about a standard of proof to justify "getting our hands on that person" just the determination of an "informed senior official."
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)It's possible to travel to these places, you realize that, right?
If you are that upset, get together with the other DUers who are upset, pool some money and send one of you to investigate the areas of Yemen or Pakistan in question.
Make sure you understand the risks, but if it bothers you that much, one of you can go and check out how hard it is to bring people in these areas to justice.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)And we "others" know and feel when you leave us out too. When our pain is not your pain, when you close your heart to our love. Feel me?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)tama
(9,137 posts)and sad is OK.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)To me, drone strikes in sovereign nations are war crimes. And outfitting local police departments with drones is going wayyyy to far for me.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)a war area. I believe they are currently investigating such.
What do you think? Should there be limits to where they can be used and who they can target?
treestar
(82,383 posts)Or were these drones invented after 2008?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)And we never has mass complaining about it then.
the M$M never decided to make something of it then. DU was not up in arms about it then.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Is Bush the standard? But you are right that we never had mass complaining. Only those of us that value human rights complained. You and others seem to be ok with the Patriot Act, domestic spying, indefinite detention and killer drones. Shame on you.
I will oppose you and others that stand behind American exceptionalism and imperialism.
JuniperLea
(39,584 posts)That war is war and all war is bad. If you want to choose the lesser of two evils, I'll take drones over boots and bombs on the ground any day. Seems many here have forgotten how many thousands were killed via the latter. Until such a time as we can get rid of all wars, the war of fewer killed is fine by me.
Power grab my lily white ass. Using power W already grabbed for the office is more like it.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)Because there is no skin in the game.
Peace, Mojo
JuniperLea
(39,584 posts)Too easy? All manner of war killing is equally easy. Innocents have been slain in all manner of wars.
War should be the issue here, not the killing machine. It's all the same. Murder is murder.
Splitting hairs in this situation only detracts and does no one any good whatsoever.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The problem is drones used in sovereign nations against specific individuals and people in their vicinity without the approval of the sovereign nation in which the person is located.
This practice could start a war.
This is very, very dangerous. I favor having some sort of judicial or legislative oversight for each decision. No one person and his subordinates should make this kind of decision in a democracy. This could have far-reaching effects. And this power could easily be abused against political adversaries. No way should the President be able to make these decisions just in the White House with his national security, foreign policy, military and intelligence advisers. Those are his appointees, and this is an abuse of the executive power in my opinion.
I like Obama, but these drones require a safer procedure, a procedure that protects all our rights and doesn't easily become a situation in which the president can violate all our rights by threatening drone strikes at his whim. I am not saying that is what Obama is doing, but I am saying that could happen in the future.
JuniperLea
(39,584 posts)Than waging war with boots on the ground and bombs and guns and missiles and such in sovereign nations against specific individuals and people in their vicinity? Rarely does a sovereign nation give anyone the thumbs up on such activity in either circumstance.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The drones are used by the president without conferring properly with Congress and getting a Declaration of War by Congress.
Also, warning to innocent people on the ground is not properly given when drones are used. If there is a war, innocent people often decide to leave the theater of war. Remember all the Iraqis who left for Syria. They were war refugees. That is what people do in war if they possibly can. The drones can kill but without the warning that people need to try to make peace or escape to safety.
As for using drones within the US, the president already has the right to suspend habeas corpus in the case of an insurrection, why do we need the NDAA?
For these reasons, the drones are not within the limitations of the Constitution.
And the worst of it is that other nations, rogue groups including terrorists and mercenaries will get the drone technology. How will we defend ourselves against their drones? This is the Sorcerer's Apprentice gone wilder than ever.
It is sad that people can never think about the ultimate consequences of simple solutions. So often, the easy way out is really, really the toughest solution.
Drones need to be subject to stringent international protocols. And we need independent commissions with armed force to enforce those protocols.
JuniperLea
(39,584 posts)So we need to get Congress to put things back the way they were.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)By codifying the conditions under which drones can be used, this makes it LESS likely they will be used. Most power-grabbers don't bother with such intricate rules.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)The OP is about hypocrisy. The hypocrisy of being outspoken about the Patriot Act, domestic spying, indefinite detention, etc. when the Republicans were doing it but very, very quiet when Democrats are doing it. No, wait, I am wrong. They arent quiet, they try to use ridicule to shut down those that have been consistently against these policies. If we dont fix these intrusions on our Constitutional rights, what in the hell will the Republicans do should they ever regain the presidency?
KakistocracyHater
(1,843 posts)Russia adds this to their capability, JUST like they both labeled as "illegal enemy combatants" & "terrorists" their Tibetan & Chechen/Georgian people. This sets a technically 'legal' precedent that you can be certain other nations will take for themselves.
Remember the drone that Iran has-who do you think they let have a look at it?
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)do you think for a second the countries you mentioned would hesitate to take out members of terrorist organizations who were targeting them?
KakistocracyHater
(1,843 posts)tama
(9,137 posts)The feel of empathy is dependent from in-group and out-group, we only feel the pain of other members of our in-group, so it's a matter of identity.
So the "rationalizations" are rational denial and defense mechanisms against feeling empathy towards the "other" - non-Americans, non-Democrats, etc. etc. And no, you can't change that with method of guilt tripping and blame gaming. You can only change yourself. But change in self also radiates to all relations...
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)therefore, we can kill our enemies in that war by any means necessary. The war is against terrorism which is a concept. That isnt too far from a war on badness. We all recognize that there are bad people everywhere. Let's just kill them. But who gets to decide who should die? Of course the answer is, the oligarchs in power get to decide.
Sorry for laughing, but I just remembered something that I now associated to "slippery slope". When I was going through another life change and hoping for a moment of stability, a friend of mine said that "the mezzanine always falls away under you". In his dry, sarcastic but so deeply compassionate way.
So, how many mezzanines to fall through before getting grounded? Six feet under? Deeper?
Edit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=669ma8qbezo
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)caseymoz
(5,763 posts)Obama's not eligible for re-election again. If you can't stand against summary execution now-- targeted murder by the government, a president, or one of his appointees, with a power of life and death-- when can you?
Vote Republican? Isn't there there something in the US called primaries? Don't we have three more years? Don't we have people in Congress we could write? Can't we protest? March on Washington? If you have the same reasons for avoiding the issue now that you did before we handily won the election, something's wrong.
And that includes not liking the way he said it. Maybe you don't like Madhound's rhetoric, but his message is better than his words. Most definitely he didn't say we should have elected Romney, and if you must add that in to give substance to your criticism, than you really nothing but your own irritability against him.
The bottom line is: if anyone in the government has the power to kill you, than-- practically speaking-- you have rights at all.
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)that makes me a Republican? I thought they liked that sort of thing — you know, blowing up shit without actually proving guilt... They go off early like a 16-year-old in the backseat of their girlfriend's Subaru.
I understand the frustration against a president, who preached peace in his run against Bush (not McCain or Palin, but Bush), who then says "Blow up ALL the things!" I get it, and it annoys me, too. I mean, for fuckssake, we even gave Saddam Hussein a trial.
That said, I prefer sending a drone to blow something up, even if it's the wrong target and civilians get killed, compared to a manned aircraft or a ground strike team. Why? Because when it's a manned plane, a pilot could get shot down and killed. If it's a ground attack, soldiers could (and frequently do) get killed. And surprisingly, eyes on the ground don't make that much difference for collateral damage. Either way, we still fuck up an unacceptable portion of the time.
dotymed
(5,610 posts)to choose who we we want for president and begin a real grassroots campaign to elect him/her.
That sounds really simplistic, but it can be if we begin immediately. Personally, I would love a Sanders/Warren ticket. Of course, we would need their commitment. We could raise money (of course) and educate the 99% about the accomplishments of Sanders and the idealism of Warren. These are two real public servants whose goals are progressive (like the majority of Americans). Of course, they would be considered to be "spoilers" of the "chosen for us" candidates.
Those are the "party first" crowd. Lets change the paradigm to people first. I feel confident that with leaders like that, we could make America the best country in the world.
Of course, I am just a lone idealist. It would take people united in their desire to really change the status quo, in a very positive way. Like our founding fathers, we could have our own nominating committee and then work our asses off to change our country.
The vast majority of people admit that our system is broken. we can change that, but we must be united and act quickly. If we wait, then in 2016, we will be voting the "lesser of two evils" again.
We could actually have a "bloodless coup."
Jakes Progress
(11,125 posts)Where to start? How about missing the point of the whole OP. It is not about absolutes. It is about hypocrisy. If you condemned it when bush did it but excuse it when Obama does it, you are a hypocrite. That would make you someone whose moral center drifts with the popular tide.
How about your rant on absolutes? You don't believe in absolutes? Is that what you are saying. (It's hared to know what you are saying because you don't do anything but toss little sentence non-sequiturs. I think you have a hard time knowing what you think - or you just can't defend it when you actually say it.)
But if you don't believe in absolutes, then you would be able to find a way to make rape okay in some situations. Or shooting four year olds in their school yard. If there are no absolutes, then there must be some way that you could yourself agreeing - in some cases - with the right wing gay haters.
Not me. I believe there are absolutes.
See. Madhound is careful and accurate. The OP lays out a scary situation regarding the moral center and intellectual honesty of those who support a man regardless of action or principle.
So. Do you believe in somethings as absolutes? Do you believe that the actions that bush took were bad then and okay now. Do you apologize to the republicans for condemning bush for doing what you support Obama for doing?
randome
(34,845 posts)The argument can easily be made that Bush was less trustworthy than Obama.
Jakes Progress
(11,125 posts)When this board was up in arms over bush's misdeeds, there was no talk of how it would be okay if only it were someone besides bush. This board was fully against the action.
bush was lest trustworthy - well duh.
Not the point. First, this is bad policy. Second, it is piss poor precedent. Short term thinking isn't what I want from a president.
Everyone should be left alone to determine their own level of hypocrisy???
NO Hypocrite EVER believes he/she is a hypocrite.
THAT evaluation is ALWAYS presented from an external observation,
and the basis is an observation of double standards.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Cite a DUer who was against drones when Bush was in office but who isn't against them now.
You can't do it. Because it is an incorrect contention.
Jakes Progress
(11,125 posts)Read my post.
Think about what is the issue.
You well know that we aren't allowed to call out other DUers. Nice try. Pizza box yourself.
There are a number of apologizers and excusers for the president's actions in the drone affair. You can find several and then play the archive game yourself. Just find where these avid Obama apologists put themselves when bush was in office.
If you fussed about bush doing it, you should fuss when Obama does it.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Floyd_Gondolli
(1,277 posts)
Number23
(24,544 posts)I was just passing by, wasn't planning on posting but your post was so spot on I logged in just to say how much I agree.
lillypaddle
(9,581 posts)redstatebluegirl
(12,265 posts)make everyone who disagrees with us take a hike. I have read many of the posts today on this subject and I have posted as well. I think I have a "moral compass" and reject than anyone who disagrees on this issue is devoid of that. I think a lot of us are struggling with this...
tama
(9,137 posts)Nope, it goes much deeper: one for all and all for one. It's sort of absolute relativism, what you do to least of us, you do to me. And that's nothing supernatural, just our most natural feeling of empathy - empathy without borders.
That is what our option is, to open up to global unlimited empathy and skillful compassion so that we don't collapse from feeling the hurt of others, but can help from inner strength and courage. As we do with all loved ones.
That is always a possible choice, being just human to other humans. Instead of partisan political etc divisive identity and rationalization to hurt others.
treestar
(82,383 posts)I would presume if we can't kill anyone in a war with drones, we can't do it with guns or bombs either.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)Last edited Thu Feb 7, 2013, 07:45 PM - Edit history (1)
just sat down at the table and a rocket demolishes your house and kills your family and you don't know why, that's just black.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)If you are talking about the drones and killing of Americans, this is what I feel. Yes, I see the connection you make, i.e. the grabbing of power. However, if there is an American training with known terrorists, that person made himself a target. That's proof that the person is on track to harm this country - he is an enemy. We are not talking about Obama sending out drones to kill Joe Neighbor in your town. Bush would have sent in troops to get the job done of taking out one main person. How many innocents would be killed in that scenario? You can look up the numbers, since it's been done. I'm not for war, killing, fighting at all. I believe that we should live in peace, but that's not reality. Each president has extended his version of the Constitution. It's only now that Obama's being called out on it. Not that balanced, is it?
jerseyjack
(1,361 posts)
Rider3
(919 posts)Sweethart, from the pocket Constitution I carry:
"AMENDMENT VI (Rights to fair trial) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his deefence."
This being stated, I still stand by my statement. If you go and train, overseas, with a known terrorist group, I feel that you have given up your Constitutional rights. When the Sixth Amendment was written, the world was not the way it is now. It's sort of like the Second Amendment. Back when that was written, the guns were muskets - not high-powered weapons. Things have to change, and if/when you go train against the country who provided you with certain rights, you then should lose those rights.
RC
(25,592 posts)Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Is there anything other than the 2nd half of the 2nd Amendment still active?
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)....If a US Citizen is based in, and engaging in acts against US personnel in foreign countries, he or she has not committed a crime in a US state or territory and is not afforded the rights granted under Amendment 6. Therefore, he or she is treated exactly the same as any other enemy combatant and/or terrorist.
Commit a crime in the US, and you have the protections granted under Amendment 6.
Commit an act against the US overseas and you're on your own.
RC
(25,592 posts)One doesn't not leave their U.S. citizenship or your U.S. citizenship rights, as proscribed in the Constitution, at the border when leaving the United States.
You are subject to the laws of the country you are in, yes, but any actions by the United States affecting you is still subject to the U.S. Constitution. No matter where you are in the world, criminal or not, you are still a citizen of this country and the Constitution still applies as far as our federal laws are concerned.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)...and sorry, if you're taking up arms against the US overseas, you forfeit your right to any protections afforded by the US Constitution.
Show me the language in the US Constitution providing ANY protections to a US citizen who participates in foreign military or terrorist acts against US personnel overseas.
RC
(25,592 posts)That is the argument here.
They're outside US jurisdiction. There is no crime committed under US law because they are outside US law.
Show me in the Constitution where it says the Constitution applies outside US jurisdiction.
nvme
(860 posts)"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." The Declaration of Independence.
We Assassinate Americans abroad. These were not idle words. I am glad they are dead, yet I am saddened that we are losing the moral high-ground. This president claims to exercise restraint, but I doubt it, considering the increase in the drone strikes. It might be cost effective. I am chilled by our extra-ordinary renditions (kidnapping) to different location(gulags), enhanced interrogations (torture). We spy on our peoples phone calls. We have become the United Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) via legislation and the patriot act. If the terrorist seek to alter our behavior, The won. We are no longer Am-eriKa. its too bad because we used to have a really great country.
nvme
(860 posts)"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." The Decleration of Independence.
We Assasinate Americans abroad. These were not idle words. I am glad they are dead, yet I am saddened that we are losing the moral highground. This president claims to exercise restraint, but I doubt it, considering the increase in the drone strikes. It might be cost effective. I am chilled by our extra-ordinary renditions (kidnapping) to different location(gulags), enhanced interrogations (torture). We spy on our peoples phone calls. We have become the United Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) via legislation and the patriot act. If the terrorist seek to alter our behavior, The won. We are no longer AmeriKa. its too bad because we used to have a really great country.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)....territories. They do not extend to those Americans taking up arms against the US overseas.
RC
(25,592 posts)http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-2/45-protection-of-american-rights-abroad.html
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)....with the forfeited rights of Americans overseas who choose to take up arms against the US. The two are not the same in any respect, and you should know that.
I'm sorry, but any American acting as an enemy belligerent has forfeited all rights granted by the US Constitution.
RC
(25,592 posts)http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1324&context=wmborj&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dus%2520constitution%2520us%2520citizens%2520in%2520foreign%2520countries%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D4%26sqi%3D2%26ved%3D0CEUQFjAD%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fscholarship.law.wm.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1324%2526context%253Dwmborj%26ei%3DhcASUdmDA42ayQHT9YHgBA%26usg%3DAFQjCNHIgAcmbDh8vbmNTosE1c9x6jS8Tg#search=%22us%20constitution%20us%20citizens%20foreign%20countries%22
Edited to add this is on page 507
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)...the Reagan Administration, the originators of this kind of action.
RC
(25,592 posts)Got it.
BTY, The Reagan Administration is mostly long gone. It is now the Obama Administration killing people from a secret list, without any proper oversight. We are just taking their say-so, that they are really real or suspected terrorist we are blowing up. How can they tell with any kind of certainty, from up to 5 miles away? They all dress like the civilians they are.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)The problem is in taking Unilateral final action, against ACCUSED persons without notice review or recourse.
There is no legal or maral justification for that power.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)Vincardog
(20,234 posts)Amendment V
Rights in criminal cases
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
Right to a fair trial
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII
Rights in civil cases
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Bail, fines, punishment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
moodforaday
(1,860 posts)He was posting pro-islamist stuff on YouTube, for godssakes. Prior to that, he was considered a "moderate Muslim", spoke on CNN and before the Congress.
He was murdered for his speech. On You-friggin-Tube.
Then, two weeks later, there was his teenge son.
RobinA
(9,928 posts)espoused in the Constitution don't evaporate at the water's edge.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)These inalienable "RIGHTS" are bestowed by our "creator",
NOT our government.
Our "government" has absolutely no justification for infringing these RIGHTS.
In fact, THAT infringement is specifically prohibited BY The Constitution.
DOI is more fundamental than US Constitution.
to life, liberty and search for happiness are not limited to US citizens or US constitution. Those rights give right to overturn any form of tyranny, global and local.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)It's not even a case of hit or miss.
I want my Rule of Law, Bill of Rights, Constitution and verifiable elections back! I WANT to be the nation that everyone else wants to move to, because of the justice and freedom and fairness.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The people being assassinated aren't under US jurisdiction. Thus the Constitution's protections of due process rights does not apply.
Assassination is, and always has been, legal as long as it takes place outside US jurisdiction.
RC
(25,592 posts)They are still American citizens, with all the right of Due Process, as contained in the Constitution, as any other citizen still in this country. You do not lose any of your American citizenship rights by crossing the border out of the US.
Assassination is legal because the assassins (US) say it is.
If it is bad under bu$h, why is it OK under Obama? Or do you think the Democrats and the Republicans are really the same? What's the difference, if they both act the same?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)If you want me to save you some time, it doesn't.
And take a moment to think about this. If the US government must protect the Constitutional rights of all US citizens wherever they are in the world, then what do we do about US Citizens who are arrested in France?
France has nothing like our 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination. Under your theory, the US would have to somehow ensure that right. So, do we send in a SEAL team, or just write a strongly-worded letter?
No. Due process rights apply to every single person in US jurisdiction. Their citizenship doesn't matter.
The fact that you're upset about assassinations now doesn't mean it has not been legal for 224 years.
Because the world is entirely single issue. Assassination is the only thing out there. There's nothing like domestic policy. Or dragging the country into wars by lying. The only issue at all is drone strikes.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)If someone is NOT under US jurisdiction,
then the US has no right to go there and execute them.
How would you feel if some other country claimed
the right to come here and execute someone they feel had violated their law?
randome
(34,845 posts)Ruling classes... who by definition get to rule by fucking "we the people"...
jeff47
(26,549 posts)It's normally called "war".
I wouldn't be happy that they are fighting a war against us. Much like I'm not happy that there are terrorists who have declared war on the US and have successfully executed people in the US. But they do have the legal right to start a war.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)When did this happen?
I must do a better job of keeping up.
When did the government of Pakistan ask us to come bomb their citizens?
Last I heard, they weren't happy about this.
Have you ever heard of Salman Rushdie?
I guess you supported the Iranian government's right to declare a Fatwa against him. If they had had drones, you would have also supported their right to use them to execute him on US soil?
Will you support this new "Power" of the Unitary Executive if Sarah Palin were President?
McCain came pretty close, and Sarah would have been a heart beat away.
That SHOULD terrify you.
This country was set up by wise men so that no one man had this kind of power.
They did that for a reason.
I am stunned that some here rationalize this abuse of power.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)They called it an "Authorization for the use of Military Force". Because Congress has a fetish for using those instead of the literal word "War". It's still the same thing.
Last I heard, they weren't happy about this.
Officially, they're not happy.
Unofficially, they are.
Because the islamists threaten their government, but have sufficient power that their government can't openly attack them or be seen to support the attacks on them.
Will you ever understand that this power is not new? Washington had this power. He lacked the drones to employ it as easily.
No, they set up a country where no one man had that kind of power within US jurisdiction. Outside US jurisdiction, they gave the president near-absolute power.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)tama
(9,137 posts)have self confidence and voice of conscience, which they trust more than authoritarian fucks who order people to hurt other people.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)....I have absolutely no problem with the US using a drone to eliminate that threat. The second that American began to participate in such a plot, is the second he or she forfeited their Constitutional rights.
My conscience is perfectly clear on this issue. To save American lives, I would have no problem being the "authoritarian f__k" who ordered that to happen.
tama
(9,137 posts)I see you first as human being, and American only when you consider non-Americans like me as something less.
I can Imagine you as a good friend, loving family member, a help in need. All that and much more. But your nationalist identity and us-against-them barrier against empathy I can only pity. In that aspect - which is not all of you!!! - you truly are not better than any other nationalist fascist.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)....Americans think and do. And you want to do it behind a mask of name-calling and labels, which is not a very good way to establish your credibility in any discussion. In fact, I'm not even sure you know what the discussion is about.
tama
(9,137 posts)All I can say as fellow human being is that right now, reading these threads, I'm feeling angry and frustrated with American nationalism which don't consider me me, a non-American, a fellow human being of flesh and blood and human emotions. And I can't see the difference between American nationalism and other forms of nationalistic fascism, which there is plenty and too much enough going on in Europe tool
I'm not fucking dictating anything. If you take attempts to remind fellow human beings of their basic humanity beyond their national identities as "dictating", God help you.
As far as I'm considered (and that's MY choice) this discussion is about empathy and lack of that, based on in-group and out-group barriers. I spend a lot of time on DU, and I connect on human to human level, I have many friends here and I wish no one anything bad.
I have grown and developed my in-group identity to global level, as my tribe has been globalized by European imperialists, and I accept that. I'm citizen of the world and what my cultural local background has to contribute, if anything, I contribute. I seek not control, just compassion and wisdom and hope that all our children, yours and mine, could have decent chance of living good whole lives.
I'm a beautiful and good man, and I love myself, and that is not away from anyone else.
My politics is rather simple, I'm antifascist and open to creativity and adaptation. And this discussion is about American fascism.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)....didn't read all of the posts in the thread, or you simply didn't understand what was being said, or both.
tama
(9,137 posts)Fascism is defined by violent authoritarian nationalism.
So tell me again I have not seen any of that in this thread...
alarimer
(16,245 posts)It's okay if it's a Democrat doing it. If Bush was doing it, and he did plenty, you would be screaming, as would almost everyone else on this site.
It is morally reprehensible, legal or not (and I think it's illegal).
I really, really hate all of you right now. How on Earth can you possibly justify assassination of a 16 year old? Or anyone else without any sort of due process. It is wrong when Bush did it, it was wrong when we did in the 60s and 70s and it IS WRONG NOW! Even if is sainted Obama who's doing it!
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)tama
(9,137 posts)I'm free and justified to assassinate you?
Just because I may think you are a potential Hitler and just generally bad person?
If you base your ethics on laws and nothing else, who is to help you when laws fail?
treestar
(82,383 posts)Where were people to call out Johnson for bombing Vietnam or Truman for bombing Hiroshima? And taking innocents in too. Maybe even American citizens - in some of those places, there could have been some.
And yet these are targeted at those actually fighting against us. Yet somehow it's worse.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)If you think this one issue will break the country you're wrong. It's no greater an issue than any other in history, but it just happens to be about the use of very modern technology. Many issues will come up in the future depending on their inventions.
The fact that there is dissent and debate and outrage shows this country isn't broken. I'd even say it shows that this country is quite healthy.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)and anything that looks like functionality is merely death throes.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)But all my life, as long as I've been interested in the history and the politics of this country there have been things that would suggest this country is dead. No civil rights or equality for Blacks was part of my life. Yet here we are, even making huge inroads into Gay rights which is pretty damn phenomenal.
We had Nazi collaborators who were upstanding businessmen like Prescott Bush. We had slavery. We pretty much wiped out the American Indians.
That's just a tiny fraction of what this country has done that not everyone knows about. There was the Tuskegee Syphilis project, forced sterilization of women who were deemed mentally challenged, and on and on. So when would you say this country wasn't broken in some way?
it makes peace with natives, people of the land and the land itself, accepts forgiveness and love and stops basing it's way of life on hurting others.
UGH
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)An administration that claims a right to "double dips" and "signature strikes" is just as imperial as little Shrub's. Regarding this, I don't see a difference: If anything, Obama is way bolder than Bush on this.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)After all, they are all such pacifists. We never get into wars/foreign adventures with a Republican in office do we?
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)After all, the only thing that counts in politics is that the Republicans don't win.
I do not want the Democrats to win by becoming Republicans.
I want a Democrat in 2016 - one whose foreign policy is tangibly different from the Imperial Cruise that the PNAC laid out for us a decade ago.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Hopefully we don't get candidates like that. But that's the Problem with having one party being batshit insane. Canidates that would normally never get a chance because in a normal world they would be unacceptable, now get the opportunity.
Teabagger candidates have made insanity acceptable. So far it doesn't seem to have infected the Dems. So far....but that could change.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)It's come to this? I guess, then, it has.
I will simply give up on letting my morality inform my political preferences - you totally convinced me that political platforms don't count. Only parties do. Understood!
You do realize that you admitted that you're politically bankrupt? You basically just told me that if the parties were to reverse roles again, you'd have no insentive to change over to the republicans. Or alternatively, that you would vote for Jeb Bush if he'd run as a D in 2016.
I just don't know what to say to that (then again, I just noticed that you've lost your privileges to post in this thread because you just couldn't stand adressing the points instead of the posters) - so I guess I don't really have to say anything.
tama
(9,137 posts)is and will always stay politics of stupid, politics of getting stupider. Have courage my friend, fear is the mind killer, there is whole world outside your fear.
randome
(34,845 posts)Building an empire, perhaps? We already pretty much own the world and Obama is withdrawing us from 2 ill-considered wars. So how are we following PNAC?
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)The very wet dream of the new unilateralism that the PNAC pushed. Then again, this could just as well be called a continuation of the Clinton Doctrine.
But yeah, my post explicitly stated the parts of the drone program that I can't agree with. PNAC or not.
randome
(34,845 posts)But that's a far cry from the OP, which posits that the Obama administration is 'evil' and 'out to get us' in so many words.
I don't see that happening.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)I stand behind what I wrote in this thread, those are my criticsms.
I don't deal in "evil" and I'm way too long gone to be concerned with anyone "getting me". I saw this thread as an opportunity to point out my worries; not necessarily to support OP's assertion. But thank you for making me realize that this needs to be pointed out! (no sarcasm - I now see that the thread is a bit more contentious than I first realized)...
Riftaxe
(2,693 posts)easily argued worse then the previous one...which was terrible indeed.
Response to randome (Reply #21)
kevm1550 Message auto-removed
randome
(34,845 posts)...is not a valid option, either. I still don't see that as a power grab. What are we getting out of it? Oil? Obama is pushing us away from oil subsidies, tax breaks and toward cleaner energy.
So I really doubt the Obama administration is part of the old -and discredited- PNAC program.
Response to randome (Reply #48)
kevm1550 Message auto-removed
pscot
(21,024 posts)By their fruits ye shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Myrina
(12,296 posts)Yes please, and thank you for stating it.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)The constitution to me is above party politics. It isn't just about us and our current situation, it's about keeping our rights that will extend to all of our descendants. We have a responsibility to them to defend what our ancestors bled and died to give to us.
Our ancestors fought the British, an enemy vastly more powerful than Al Qaeda. They knew if they lost they would hang, and yet they still risked their lives and their families to get rights like due process.
I won't be the generation that everyone looks back on and wonders what they were thinking in allowing this to happen. Budging an inch on this creates a crack that will only widen. I'm more afraid of our own armed citizens than of some guy in Yemen who hates us.
randome
(34,845 posts)You do not get to decide whether someone has a 'moral compass' that fits your definition.
The fact that you've started about six threads on this subject shows that you believe in panic attacks more than reasoned debate.
Response to randome (Reply #10)
Post removed
randome
(34,845 posts)
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Jakes Progress
(11,125 posts)I can see that you have a bone about MH. But how about addressing the issue.
Do you think that this kind of executive action is okay? Would you have thought so if bush did it?
That is what constitutes reasoned debate. Not snarky replies that don't address the issue.
randome
(34,845 posts)But to say this is the 'breaking point' overlooks the complexities of the issue.
We are operating in other countries at the behest of their governments. Many of those we target and kill are those who behead women and chop the hands off unbelievers. Not all of them are terrorists who hate the U.S. Some are terrorists who want to overthrow their government and install Islamic dictatorships. I'm sure you know how well those kind of endeavors go for women.
In all the 'fog of war' stuff this entails, we do some good things on balance.
I'm not worried that Obama -or any future President- will start eliminating his or her political opponents.
Jakes Progress
(11,125 posts)That's a great comfort.
"fog of war" and "complexities of the issue" were the same sound bites that came from cheney's office six years ago.
So, you think it is wrong, but you don't want anyone to say anything about it.
You get pissed that you think someone is telling you what your breaking point is but you don't mind telling someone else what theirs should be.
Oh. And to start bringing up the plight of women as an excuse is way below nasty. So your next tactic is to say that anyone who doesn't support killing American citizens without trial is supporting beheading for women. How nasty and dishonest a tactic that is. Or is saving the women of the world from mistreatment your reason for the war? I've got some other countries you could begin bombing then. Saving the people from a dictator was bush's excuse once their were no wmd.
Mustellus
(328 posts)... get his Constitutional Right to a Grand Jury ????
Or was he summarily executed... ?
Did all the people killed in WW II bombing of cities.. get their Grand Jury rights ?????
Were little old ladies and children at Hiroshima in any imminent danger of attacking the USA?????
Perhaps.. just perhaps.. the OMGDRONEWARHATEOBAMA ... isn't really a liberal thing. Perhaps its being urged on by the right...
randome
(34,845 posts)RC
(25,592 posts)Got it.
randome
(34,845 posts)But the kidnapper in Alabama was executed. In life-or-death situations, police execute assailants. We don't demand trials for them first.
And if one thinks WWII was worth fighting, we didn't demand trials for German soldiers who were trying to kill us.
I don't like the freedom the President -ANY President- has with these rules and regulations, but they don't really keep me awake at night, either.
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)you have a point.
Certainly not a up or down issue. There is a very finely grained spectrum of context. My guess is that no on here sits in on the Presidents security briefings and that they have a very limited perspective from which to pass their judgement. They certainly have their opinions and pov's, but in many cases they are underinformed and/or misinformed.
FredStembottom
(2,928 posts)..... The constitution spells out what choices are not allowed- no matter what.
We are provided with that guidance from the country's founders precisely to forestall our elected officials ever making the argument that we are not elite enough to sit in judgement of their policies.
We don't need to be in the room.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)Alabama, WWII, Hiroshima - there's at least a basis on which to decide if the people killed were guilty of something.
In what is now happenig in FATA, we simply don't. Maybe our grandchildren will, if there will still be historians around then.
As to your other point:
I've been on DU longer than this admin is in place. I remember people condemning these shenanigans long befoe Obama came and long before they became as omnipresent as they now are.
To insiniuate that being critical of this assassination campaign is some sort of indication of hidden RW motives is pretty cheap, and not something that I would put out here in your first hundred posts.
Mustellus
(328 posts)...this morning... really concerned... CONCERNED!!!! over the drone assassination program, I am more convinced than ever that this is pushed just as much by the HateObama groups ... as by the more.. shall we say ... "clutch your pearls and faint" branches of liberalism.
And yes, I'm a liberal. Haven't voted Repug since once for .. (shame) Nixon.
And yes. Kurt Vonnegut was at Dresden in the firestorm. Just one of the American POW's.. one of the ones who survived.
Were there no Americans in Hiroshima? None at all?
Were any of the Americans who died in the Civil War... all of them.. given their Right of Grand Jury? Were Confederates ever tried for Treason, and convicted? The penalty for rebellion against the USA is death, by the way.
Seemingly you accept wholesale slaughter in Nation - to - Nation warfare... but not the fact that hostage situations, single people conspiring to murder Americans, calls for a more One - On - One approach to warfare. While I'm uneasy with all warfare, its better than carpet bombing cities.
And yes. the FBI agents in Alabama at the hostage assault undoubtedly wanted to go home that night. I suspect they wanted to rescue the little kid. Getting Mr. Machinegun his Grand Jury rights was probably way third. So I suspect it was BamBamBam Surrender! After they were convinced that trying to talk him into accepting his Grand Jury rights was not going to work.
If you don't think the Right Wing isn't pushing this, you are naive.
And if Democratic Underground doesn't permit honest discussion, maybe it isn't Democratic.
He's not worth hating. He's just a tool. Legally he should be impeached, as most other "leaders". Leaders are just tools of the system. And it's the system we need to change, not get lost in leadership cults.
NOVA_Dem
(620 posts)Alabama shooter was a murderer and hostage taker.
We were ATTACKED by Japan at Pearl Harbor
You need a better argument. We are talking about US citizens without formal charges or any due process assassinated without judicial review.
Mustellus
(328 posts)... was an ALLEGED MURDERER and an ALLEGED HOSTAGE TAKER.
He hadn't been Grand Juried yet. But you accused, tried, convicted him, and cheered as the (unconstitutional) death sentence was carried out.
I really do believe he was a "US citizens without formal charges or any due process assassinated without judicial review.". A phrase I heard somewhere.
Oh, and I agree with the FBI taking him out when all other attempts to negotiate failed.
Rider3
(919 posts)The guy got what he had coming.
NoMoreWarNow
(1,259 posts)give me a freaking break
donheld
(21,311 posts)
wandy
(3,539 posts)
Blanks
(4,835 posts)wandy
(3,539 posts)Ugly! Not something you would have wanted Nixon to have.
Someday I'm going to send NBC news a low resolution document with MY water mark plastered all over it.
quaker bill
(8,225 posts)whether my "moral compass" is functional, or set up tests for others to pass or fail. I would not presume to do so for you.
tomp
(9,512 posts)i'm sure obama is not questioning his own moral compass and is likely immune to my opinion on it.
believe me, if i went and murdered someone you loved, you (or everyone else i have ever met or heard of) would immediately make the judgment that my moral compass was off, irrespective of how right i thought i was. if i managed to pass a law or issue an order that said it was ok for me to do that, you would certainly also challenge the functioning of my moral compass and of those associated with it. if you would not denounce the moral compass behind those actions (simply unbelievable), it would be fair to challenge yours.
let's try to keep it real, ok?
quaker bill
(8,225 posts)tomp
(9,512 posts)quaker bill
(8,225 posts)not about how I would feel toward someone who killed a family member. This is a classic line of thought used against pacifists when justifying the death penalty, "how would you feel if".....
This is out of context. The Magistrate put together a great OP on this. In short, it is entirely reasonable to conclude from the readily observable evidence (two invasion, countless arrests, detainments, commando raids, air strikes, drone strikes, all over the planet) that we are at war with a non-state actor. Whether I approve of this or not does not change the fact that a war exists.
The news has been out there for a decade that if you hook up with these Al-Queda dudes you can quite possibly end up on the unfortunate end of a hellfire missle. I do not think the Al-Queda dudes are at all confused about this, they think they are at war with us and are pretty sure they will be killed if found, which is why they work at not being found.
I object to all wars, but I do not deny that they exist and that people are quite intentionally killed in them. All the deaths related to war are wrong, no one death more wrong than another, no means of killing more wrong than another. Killing a person by lethal injection after "due process" is not less wrong than killing them by drone strike. The result is the same, one is just better papered over.
randome
(34,845 posts)
You should post this in the other 65 threads on the subject. But, please, whatever you do, DON'T START ANOTHER THREAD ON THIS SUBJECT!
Thank you.
tomp
(9,512 posts).....my post is about drone strikes, too. the point is not about anyone personally but about the logic of deciding someone can be summarily executed. i just provided a logical extension of obama's decision. i find people generally bristle at logical extensions.
if you are the sort of person who can remove self defense from your repertoire of behaviors when under threat of death to self or loved ones, then i salute you. that's not me, however. i believe in the right to defend oneself against unjustified attack. i also believe that the u.s has been in a state of virtual war since the end of wwII (at least), and none of it has been justified, i.e., defensive. it has ALL been offensive, imperialist aggression. i also believe that the u.s. gov't lies to its people all the time, and that the official story on Al-Queda and the attacks of 9/11 is a lie, and that we know very little absolutely about what is really going on behind the scenes of imperialist intrigue.
therefore, obama's order, which grants virtual carte blanche to assassinations of american citizens, is simply an extension of imperialist foreign policy.
then, we simply enter Kent State or the occupy movement into the discussion and my point should hit home.
quaker bill
(8,225 posts)Some seem to feel that the manner in which the lethal decision is reached matters. It means nothing to the dead.
Some seem to feel that the means by which lethality is delivered matters. It means nothing to the dead.
Some seem to feel that the accident of ones location at birth matters. It also means nothing to the dead.
Now I will grant that placing life and death decisions in the hands of one or a small group of individuals is a problem. The President carries the keys to the US nuclear arsenal, this is the biggest life and death decision ever known. The President can and several have ordered cruise missle strikes, invasions, and military interventions. These are often intended and targeted to kill specific people. All this stuff has existed for a very long time. The President is the chief law enforcement officer domestically. It is all reasons to select who to vote for very carefully.
All considered, the drone bit may, just may add 0.01 percent to the mix, not more.
tomp
(9,512 posts)the u.s has been involved in imperialist violence for over one hundred years and it is an abomination. hell, humans have been involved in violence as long as there have been humans. and i don't think matters that it is an american, except that it appears to be a near final flaunting of law, and gives the lie to the protection america offers its citizens, and i fear it opens the flood gates to attacking protest movements inside the u.s. and it gives the lie to the progressiveness of obama and the democratic party, which i think is an extremely important signpost pointing toward a solution of the problem. i don't know if that is subtle but that's my take.
quaker bill
(8,225 posts)Government kills people all the time. The people of apparent concern here were without reasonable doubt in the company of and aiding and abetting an organization that targets and kills people, citizens, foriegn nationals, and US military personell. We kill people every day for less than this. You can easily end up dead for robbing a convenience store, where no one was hurt in the slightest. Heck, you can nearly end up dead for driving a blue tacoma in the wrong place.
Government here can and does take the lives of its citizens, with due process at best only post mortem.
I guess we could do the same for these guys, I just don't think it makes it any better.
I have been a part of many protest movements. Organizations I have been a part of were in fact infiltrated by federal agents. They did not find anything, because Quakers are pacifists and weapons of any sort are strictly forbidden at our rallies. We don't do this by accident. If you are going to do civil disobedience at a national security facility, it is good to make it really clear to the guys in the green suits carrying the M-16s, that you will have no weapons and will offer no resistance to their arrests.
I know from personal experience that you can fill the local jails to the brim, with no one getting hurt. What you do is you send folks with no ID and no prior history. THey all identify themselves as John and Jane Doe. It can tie the courts up for weeks and gets pretty good coverage.
tama
(9,137 posts)human to human is real. Abstract contextual rationalization is just abstract.
truth2power
(8,219 posts)that would cause them to withdraw their support of him.
At the same time, if a Republican were to be elected in 2016, they would be back to bleating about how stupid Repubs are because they support their insane leaders, no matter what.
That some can't see what's wrong with that picture just boggles the mind.
I reached my breaking point long ago. I refuse to be a "good German".
"We the people". It is to laugh. 
FredStembottom
(2,928 posts)This bizarre, lock-step form of Democratic advocacy is just another aspect of the general decadence of American politics.
Everything is just football teams now.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)I think the PTB let Obama into the WH so that all manner of crime would be excused by a nice big chunk of so-called Dems who would be pissed if a Repuke tried it. Wait until Obama cuts SS and Medicare benefits. The same psychos will be on board with that, offering the same excuses the teabaggers did when Bush tried it.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)It's not just pretty words...it's living and governing ethically.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)....and expanded somewhat under Bush I and Clinton, and then greatly expanded after 9/11 under Bush II?
Tell me exactly what "unConstitutional power grab" the President has undertaken that has not been initiated by the previous four presidents?
Why is it that some posters on this board, to include you personally, want to blame the President for a policy that was started back in the 1980s under Reagan and his VP, Bush I?
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)Drones are uniquely suited to standing assassination programs; their persistence offers opportunities that simply were unheard of in the days of Reagan, B1 and Clinton.
The mechansim behind an assassination by drone strike, as far as we know, is totally different from the mechansims that were previsously used for selected assassinations - most obvious difference being the "opportunity window" for the kill.
It was not until the Bush years that our drone fleet came in such numbers that it allowed for 24/7 surveilleince of whole regions.
I think that this standing assassasination program is qualitatively different from selected assassinations that were carried out before, for the reasons I listed. Certainly the mechanism that selects the targets is wholly different.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)....than the actions carried out under Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II, even though the technology has improved over the last 30 years? Additionally, does the methodology of how someone is killed really matter all that much when the US conducts an assassination in a foreign country? By the way, the US has been conducting assassinations in other countries since the Eisenhower Administration, but they never asked Congress for the authorization to do so.
The precedent for the use of kidnappings and assassinations against enemies overseas has already been established....trying to put the cork in the bottle now is too little and much too late. The time to have acted was the second the Reagan Administration asked Congress for the right to kidnap enemies overseas and transport them to a US jurisdiction to be tried for their crimes against the US. By the way, it wasn't Reagan who came up with that idea....it was his VP, Poppy Bush, a former long-term CIA operative and Director. Is it any wonder his son expanded the program to where it stands today?
I would also argue that every US President going back to George Washington has conducted one or more actions that could be perceived as unconstitutional, or were actually unconstitutional, to include some actions against US Citizens in the US. The conditions at the time the actions were taken generated the necessity to do so.
As to part of the issue at hand, I personally don't have much sympathy for a US Citizen who is discovered to be actively involved in terrorist plots or actions against US military or civilian personnel overseas. You reap what you sow.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)I think the main difference is that it is a standing program. My other objections are to tactics - I simply can't condone "double dip" attacks and "signature strikes". I agree: We may assassinate, given the right circumstances. But I'm adamant that such decisions should always be made by weighing all factors against each other. I have reason to believe that this is not the case as far as the CIA/contractor use of drones in FATA are concerned.
As to what you wrote here:
"As to part of the issue at hand, I personally don't have much sympathy for a US Citizen who is discovered to be actively involved in terrorist plots or actions against US military or civilian personnel overseas. You reap what you sow. "
I agree in parts. No love lost there. Although I'd prefer if there was some possibility for me to determine the guys guilt. That's why I'd like the targeting and selection process to be out in the open.
Then again - we also killed his son. He sowed nothing, yet reaped the same faith as his father.
But generally, I agree with your point: Constitutionally speaking, these issues are not a novelty. But I assert that technological changes have changed the outlook, scope and overall acceptability of assassinations carried out by the US. I think the direction this points to is dangerous. And I have no reason to trust the program as it now stands. Research on the ground (Waziristan) indicates that all is not as clean as presented by this admin.
Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #28)
FredStembottom This message was self-deleted by its author.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)FredStembottom
(2,928 posts)I stand by that being a terrible argument that justifies nothing....... But I did frame it as a lecture and feel now that I was too personal.
Sorry, OD2012.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)whaaa?
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)The post to which you responded was a reply to one that said, "this policy was started under Reagan, and grown under Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. So It's OK that Obama is extending it".
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)Democratic presidents have been guilty of killing extrajudicially...the issue is not whether we should should condemn Obama, but whether we will take a stand against all extrajudicial killings, anywhere, anytime.
librabear
(85 posts)Why are you willing to be complacent now if you think this is wrong?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)We don't know exactly how far back presidents have been assassinating people, since they didn't talk about it.
We know that it was used during the cold war, because Ford signed an executive order supposedly stopping assassinations.
truth2power
(8,219 posts)"We've always done it this way". Not an excuse to continue doing it.
Doesn't make it right or moral.
tomp
(9,512 posts)...has killed anyone if felt like whenever it felt like. but it's ok because there is bipartisan precedent, right?
EastKYLiberal
(429 posts)For issues that affect working families, not traitors and extremists.
FredStembottom
(2,928 posts)N/t
Response to FredStembottom (Reply #35)
kevm1550 Message auto-removed
Floyd_Gondolli
(1,277 posts)This is vintage DU IMO. Fascinating from an anthropological perspective.
FredStembottom
(2,928 posts)...you're ok with that?
Hopefully I misunderstood your post.
randome
(34,845 posts)You're okay with that?
FredStembottom
(2,928 posts)The whole 911 event should have been handled as a giant crime.
International law could have coped with it.
But neo-cons wanted the excuse to Empire.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)a traitor and extremist is just simple Fascism.
What basis do you judge that on? As far as I can see, that tiny bit of scientific literature on the subject seems to contradict your bold assertion.
http://livingunderdrones.org/
Response to Democracyinkind (Reply #39)
Post removed
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)Nowhere in this thread have you been addressed by me.
Floyd_Gondolli
(1,277 posts)Are you always so insufferable?
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)Floyd_Gondolli
(1,277 posts)But hey, continue to drone on. 
Get it? Drone on 
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)Now, would you like to hire me for my droning skills?
It could prove helpful in eventually locating that subthread you wanted to post in before you started pissing on my leg....
tomp
(9,512 posts)...and do you trust the gov't to have the same definition as you?
IsiahHallJr
(1 post)THINK!
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)
Sid
Octafish
(55,745 posts)What if a president who wanted to invade Iraq was opposed in Congress by a conscientious Senator?
Could the president name such a Senator an "Enemy of the State" in order to proceed with said invasion?
Is that what happened to Paul Wellstone?
unapatriciated
(5,390 posts)sadly one we will never know the answer to.
Not too many politicians had his morale compass.
FredStembottom
(2,928 posts)We could steer the obviously conflicted Obama admin. away from this horrendous policy if we all worked together to say "this does not represent us. We do not concur."
In what way would Democrats saying this to our Democratic officials be any kind of problem at all?
Sounds like what parties do and have done for centuries.
Why not unite around stopping something so incredibly un-(D)democratic?
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)This is nowhere near being a breaking point. It is simply one more in a long line of short term outrages that will fade with time.
There are (R)s out there that want to impeach Pres. Obama and will use any excuse to do so. If they grab onto this and try to impeach him then this will be a story. Until then it is little more than an oddity.
Baitball Blogger
(46,825 posts)we're also going to have to protect Americans from a drone-abusing government that thinks it's okay to send drones to kill possible unfriendlies who may or may not be attending someone's private affair. That's where this thing might be headed if we don't offer some resistance now.
It's like Waco on steroids. It's the Neil Armstrong of bad ideas.
ON edit: Well, obviously no one reads my posts because that was suppose to read "Lance" not "Neil."
It is the Lance Armstrong of bad ideas.
littlewolf
(3,813 posts)and we have joint police and military operations involving shooting
blanks from helo's over American cities.
this could end badly.
michigandem58
(1,044 posts)I'll stay here in reality, thanks.
FSogol
(45,614 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"The vast majority of Democrats and liberals righteously damned Bushboy for his unConstitutional power grab. But now, when Obama is making the same sort of unConstitutional power grab with his policy of extrajudicial killing, we are starting to see a rift open and widen."
...assuming that the program is an "unConstitutional power grab." Where has that been determined as fact?
From Senator Wyden's statement
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.
Flashback: Russ Feingold 'Pleased' Anwar Al-Awlaki Was Taken Out By Drone Strike
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022319856
Excerpt from the DOJ white paper
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022319655
John2
(2,730 posts)to say I have been consistent with my interpretation of what is Constitutional or not. I also draw on History. The only power a document has is from the consent of those that agree to it. That means the people.
I've never criticized President Bush of abusing the Constitution when it comes to Drones. I have when it came to abusive Interrogation techniques under the Geneva conventions, which we agreed to. His administration's explanation didn't fly with me.
How considering my position on using Drones, My position is the President of the United States gets that power as the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces. I don't see that power given to Congress or the Judicial. He is the Commander in Chief in the time of War.
And having been in the military myself, you do not put handcuffs on the Commander of your Armed Force's ability to prosecute the War. See Commander in Chief Abraham Lincoln when he placed certain Americans in jail, for collaboration with the enemy. Study the history of the copperheads and head Supreme Court Justice Taney. We are prosecuting a War against Al Qaeida and the President is the Commander in Chief.
And there are rules for War that we have agreed to like torture and certain civilian participants. Those rules do not cover drones. Congress does have the duty to advise and counsel the President of ways to carry out their Policies, but they are not in the chain of command even though they control the purse. The bottom line, if you align yourself with terrorists or join Al Qa eda, you are taking a risk.
Finally, no War is sterile. Innocent victims die in all Wars. One of our most famous Generals stated it best. War is hell! The citizens allowing terrorists to carry out attacks against the United States have the power to stop it. The primarily obligation of the Commander in chief is to defend the United States and her people. He would be unfit and the Right would have a case for impeachment. So it really is a case of dammed if you do and dammed if you don't. President Obama is getting hit from both sides of the extreme. It shows that he is a good commander to me. 
How considering my position on using Drones, My position is the President of the United States gets that power as the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces. I don't see that power given to Congress or the Judicial. He is the Commander in Chief in the time of War.
So please refresh my memory, when did we declare war, and who did congress declare war against?
The last time I heard about a war being declared it was against Germany.
by which you just state that you have no moral or ethical backbone, and if same standards that you hold to others are applied to you, you don't deserve to live and to be loved.
Soldier, have you ever given thought what it would mean to be a Warrior?
TheKentuckian
(25,035 posts)but it is bullshit, Pro.
It is bullshit because that is not anywhere near the asserted line.
It isn't an active member of Al Queda either.
It isn't actively plotting against the US either.
In fact the line is all the way fucking past thought crime to in our unchecked, unverified, and unbounded opinion that so and so is, not allied or associated with but "aligned" with a terror organization and POTENTIALLY may plot against the US because we say so.
You are guilty because we said so just like you are deemed to be a combatant because of age range, genitalia, and we hit you.
Al-Awlaki is not the Alpha and Omega here, this is a program. Even if you believe you have enough information on that one target, it does not logically follow that subsequent hits are legitimate and no way to make sure. No way to verify the authority is not used in error or maliciously going forward. Nor is the power constrained to this one President in a war without an enemy nation-state, battle ground other the entire world, clear goals to know victory is achieved, time line, nationality, or even coherent organization at this point. No uniforms, language, or even religion.
The more "normal" and the more subsequent administrations do this is the greater the risk of errors, creeping rationale, and outright abuse protected by self justifying logic that takes for granted if you are targeted then you are guilty.
To defend this shit is a form of treason, not only against our nation but against justice, self governance, and rule of law.
Riftaxe
(2,693 posts)are you not worried?
After all, the standard for extrajudicial killing now no longer requires evidence, just a suspicion. Not even a suspicion founded upon evidence or intelligence.
Please do not get on the same bus as me, after all you have been accused on a public forum, that is enough for a drone attack....If we let the current reality of the memo to become standard.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)I don't have much problem with the targeted killing of terrorists even if they do happen to be American citizens. If someone is in Afghanistan, or Pakistan, and has taken up arms against the United States and its allies? Then they're a legitimate target, citizen or no. This isn't really about party, or politics, nor is it especially a constitutional issue. It's about targeting enemy combatants in an ongoing military campaign against widely dispersed non-state actors some of whom may be American by birth; demanding "due process" in this situation is not really especially feasible; are Special Forces supposed to go in and take them under arrest so they can be brought back to the USA for trial for treason then?
FSogol
(45,614 posts)OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)....which is as follows:
Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Note the key phrase, "State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law. This clearly states that if you commit a crime in the US or US territories, you are granted the rights granted under Amendment 6. But, if you're committing crimes or terrorist acts overseas against US personnel, you lose those rights.
Robb
(39,665 posts)
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)People far from any battlefield. Actually they claim the whole world, including inside the US as their battlefield. And the war is expected to last for ever. So it's not like a regular war. The effect of all this is that the government now claims the authority to kill any person, any time, any where, US national or otherwise, based on mere suspicion of "supporting" terrorist groups. "Supporting" can be defined any way the government likes. So it includes "signature strikes", where they kill people based on looking at certain websites or talking to certain people on the phone. It's guilt by association. Not only can they kill, they could also choose to detain a suspect indefinitely without charges. And it's not limited to just Pakistan and Yemen, it also applies in the US.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)as you say...
"It's guilt by association. Not only can they kill, they could also choose to detain a suspect indefinitely without charges. And it's not limited to just Pakistan and Yemen, it also applies in the US. "
proReality
(1,628 posts)They have drones flying all over the country now.
Which president will eventually decide that there is an imminent threat to the security of home turf and bomb the hell out of some site because an American idiot has a huge cache of lethal weapons in his/her family home?
If each president expands a bit on their 'authority' it won't take long before it happens. Too many politicians lean toward sociopathy (and our military seems to attract them like a magnet). One of these days we could end up with a full-blown sociopath in the WH, who will have no qualms about using drone strikes at home.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Especially since imminent threats on domestic soil are better dealt with by law enforcement; the situation in Afghanistan is not really comparable.
proReality
(1,628 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)because, you know, if a US president ever orders a drone strike on American soil based on "credible threats of terrorism"? At that point, all of the pissing and moaning about constitutionality is going to be pretty much an irrelevancy because at that point, you'll be living in a functional dictatorship, regardless of what semblances and trappings of the democratic process remain. The use of drones to target people on American soil would be like what Assad has been doing in Syria. And the idea that it would happen anyway is frankly absurd because...what's the point of using drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan, again? The targets are in geographically distant and largely inaccessible locations in mountainous terrain; the logistics of conducting a military operation in such terrain make it very dicey; the possibility of hostile opposition and casualties make it more so. In Afghanistan and Pakistan we're talking about a military operation. Inside the US? It's a police operation (even if it involves federal police like the FBI).
tomp
(9,512 posts)someone who actually believes what the gov't says about the "war on terror."
treestar
(82,383 posts)It's a rare case used to make a general statement, but tif the same people are OK with it if the people aren't citizens, one has to wonder about their sincerity of concern for the rule of law. If it can be applied to US citizens in foreign countries plotting against us, it can be applied to non US citizens in similar situations, so there's no excuse for not wanting full trials for them too. That is, if use of the rule of law is the true concern.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts) Whisp
(24,096 posts)a new chew toy is here! a new chew toy is here!
dionysus
(26,467 posts) ann---
(1,933 posts)I would have stayed home and not voted at all in the election.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)Response to ann--- (Reply #77)
kevm1550 Message auto-removed
gholtron
(376 posts)Three Americans were killed. One unfortunately was a 16 year old boy in which there are no details about why he was killed. But the father, Anwar-Al-Awlaki and Adam Gadahn aka “Azzam the American” were clearly members of Al Qaeda and making threats against the United States. Adam Gadahn has been CHARGED with treason and there was a reward for his arrest. There are videos of each of them making such threats and inciting violence against the United States in their role as a leader of Al Qaeda. We have witness the terrorism of Al Qaeda around the world. Al Qaeda has killed thousands of innocent people. These two ex -Americans were members of that organization. The part that I don’t get is that there are people who present these two Americans as two Americans on holiday in the middle east that were killed by the US government but failed to mention that these two Americans were members of a terrorist organization that is on record by video and other international medias making threats against this country. It appears that there are people that are trying to scare us to think that this can happen to ordinary Americans abroad without presenting any evidence that it has happened to ordinary Americans abroad. I listened to TYT show on Feb 5 on Current TV. And I listened to Cenk arguing the fact that we are killing Americans without due process. What he failed to mention is that these two Americans were leaders in Al Qaeda. What he failed to mention that Adam Gadahn and Anwar-Al-Awlaki were charged with treason. What he failed to mention that the Yemen Government on the behave of the United States ,tried to capture Anwar-Al-Awlaki and was unsuccessful. What he failed to mention that Adam Gadahn was charged with treason and there was a reward for his capture. My question is, if an American citizen joins a terrorist organization in a leadership role that has been linked to thousands of killings of innocent people, should they get a free pass from the US Government? If they are hiding in a lawless country or a country that is unwilling to extradite or incapable of capturing Americans for trail in the United States for planning and inciting war against this country, should we just look the other way because we do not have the legal means to go after them? Should we just let them continue to incite terrorism against this country, which by the way is NOT Free Speech, because they are Americans? Someone please explain that part? I get they were Americans. I get they were targeted by this government. What I don’t get is how to bring these people to justice. I keep hearing that the US Government killed them. I have never heard a solution of how to bring them to justice.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)Could it be that they DO know some intel we are not privy to? All this wailing and and shouting about my President being a Bush is pitiful. All the quislings and naysayers are just sitting back and waiting for something to sink their teeth in.. Well if it's the breaking point, then break and good bye and good riddance. Quislings have no moral compass and are usually self serving.
This OP is laughable.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I don't think so.
Also, see if you're able to extrapolate and think just a little bit beyond today (it's one of the hallmarks of humans, you know, to be able to think about the future). You'll eventually see why your response to the OP was, in your words, laughable. (hint: Jeb Bush, George P Bush, Marco Rubio).
heaven05
(18,124 posts)AM NOT SENDING THEM ANYWHERE. IT'S THEIR CHOICE AS AN OPTION. SO WHAT IF I'M ONLY A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN HERE SINCE JUNE. I'VE READ SOME HYPOCRITICAL BULLSHIT FROM WHAT I'VE PRESUMED WAS FROM 'OLD TIMERS' LIKE YOU AND HAVE HAD A GOOD LAUGH FOR THAT DAY. I'm entitled to my opinion whether you like it or not. Now I have said things that caused me to be executed by the jury here and the very next time I open this site and I see someone saying the very same thing and being applauded by their 'old timer' peers. Lot of hypocritical favoritism on this site. If you took offense, then I must have struck a chord!
Have a good day.
Well maybe not executed, but words censored by DUPTB. But, oh well.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)Last edited Wed Feb 6, 2013, 05:46 PM - Edit history (2)
me Jesus 
Have a good day. Sarcasm noted and summarily DISMISSED.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)... is that we do not get declared guilty based on evidence that "we are not privy to." There is no more basic right as an American and as a free person than the right to a fair trial.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts) rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)that lots of people would rather rationalize than face the issue. They arent discussing the issue but trying to shut off discussion with ridicule. For them rationalization is the key to happiness and you are threatening that.
Arcanetrance
(2,670 posts)The reason it's more reprehensible is the fact that the president ran and was elected as a Democrat. He was elected to represent our values and that includes opposition to drone strikes and an imperial president. He was so good at convincing the world he held these values he won a peace prize prematurely. To those that want to bring up oh well I guess you would have preferred Romney or what Republican would you like to see elected. The meme has worn thin being a lock step supporter of an administration is dangerous. When we let our hero worship get in the way we lose sight of our values.
gholtron
(376 posts)You are the President. You are presented with intel that there is an on going planning to strike a 911 type attack within the United States. One of the architect is an American born citizen. He is hiding in an area where it difficult to get our personnel to apprehend him. How do you keep us safe Mr or Ma am President?
Arcanetrance
(2,670 posts)Succeed. Now to your other point where is this Intel coming from it seems to me every time we have credible intelligence it leads to civilian casualties. Now I ask you this if we are willing to take away the rights of our citizens and accept it by saying oh they're fighting against us overseas. How long til it's used right here on american soil enemies of the state assassinated because they're fighting against the country. "Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither"
gholtron
(376 posts)Really? As President of this country who has sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution from foreign and DOMESTIC enemies is saying there is no perfect solution they are going to bomb us anyway? That is what you're going to tell the American people? If the drone attacks were illegal then why hasn't the Supreme Court stopped it? Where is Congress on this?
I'm sorry but I don't understand your question to me. Are you saying in your question that we are taking away the rights of American citizens that align themselves with an American enemy? The United States Congress declared war on terror naming Al Qeada as the enemy during George Bush's term. Therefore those Americans that are Al Qaeda members are enemies of the United States.
Arcanetrance
(2,670 posts)Killings that have more often than not killed civilians. Seems to against my oath to protect the country by creating new enemies. Yes we declared war on Al Qaeda do me a favor define Al Qaeda it's a faceless entity I can say your Al Qaeda.
randome
(34,845 posts)Arcanetrance
(2,670 posts)gholtron
(376 posts)So your solution is to do nothing. Let's sit there and wait for another 911 type attack.You seem to forget that if we don't do anything there will be a hella of a lot more innocent people that will die. PERIOD. And no I am not a member of Al Qaeda. And I Insulted that you would even bring that up. If you can't handle a debate without the name calling then do me a favor and don't reply to me again.
Arcanetrance
(2,670 posts)My point was to say when your dealing with a faceless organization the government could say anyone is a member. As to what to do to keep America safe we have one of the largest military and intelligence footprints in the world remind me how that stopped 911 I'm not convinced that if a group is determined to hit us our current policy is going to be any more successful at stopping them. My idea is to stop giving those organizations material to use to recruit against us.
gholtron
(376 posts)Remember the famous August memo that Bush received while on vacation? Bush knew about the pending attack.
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp%3Fitem%3Da020601sunnithreat&sa=U&ei=xIMSUeejFaSQ2gXuoYCQBw&ved=0CDIQFjAB&sig2=3D3kOWXiz_38rTNa444SQA&usg=AFQjCNFshYe7gQhu1oEMRVh3A0xouXYRpw
He did nothing and look what happened. That is my point.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)That's the "solution".
reACTIONary
(5,801 posts)austinlw
(54 posts)Given that choice, I'd go with Obama every time, despite the fact that I'm skeptical about some of his policies (such as this one). On balance considering all important economic and foreign policies, Obama was by far the better choice, both in 2008 and 2012. There are hundreds of millions of Americans and the choice usually comes down to 2 candidates every 4 years. It would be unrealistic for me to expect that I (or most other people) would agree with either one of those 2 100% of the time. Reality: either Obama or Romney was going to be elected. Obama won and I'm happy about that overall, considering the alternative.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)when you consider the alternative.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)
Well, OK, I suppose it really is.
Upton
(9,709 posts)Obama has a D after his name so it's all good..
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)It is the one and only guiding light for our country.
And anyone, anyone who violates the Constitution, is
no different that someone who wants to end America.
librabear
(85 posts)This stuff has been going on for the last 30 years, republican and democrat. If you aren't outraged you aren't paying attention!
This is what the constitution is for, and checks and balances on the office. It's to limit the power of government and protect OUR rights. That still applies when we are discussing unpolular rights such as gun rights. The thing is that I don't see the militia guys with AR15's as the silly ones!
Who cried when the seventeenth amendment took the state's right to appoint senators?
Who complained when we started a "war" on terror, poverty, drugs, etc. and allowed unprecedented special powers reserved for war to be granted to the "current" tenant of the white house? I say current because I am not talking about Obama here.
Who commented when they created the Fed and subcontracted control of our currency to a private bank?
Who weeped when they confiscated gold in the 1930's, devalued it, and distributed it again afterwards? Was this not one of he biggest siezures of private wealth in the history of the US?
Where was the outcry when they took us off the gold standard, created a fiat money system, and began borrowing money and creating crazy inflation in the 1970's? Then they took our homes, farms, and businesses and charged us capital gains taxes on those things because they are now worth five or ten times what we paid for them, even if they just kept up with inflation.
Who will be around to notice when that happens again?
Where is the outcry for the current spending levels?
Why aren't the other "liberals" who are supposed to be looking out for individual rights (right?) saying anything about this?
I wasn't around then, but where are all these people?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippie
Surele most of those hippes are still alive!
These things aren't about Republican vs Democrat. It's not a liberal vs conservative issue. We need to get away from those monikers if we are going to have any real progress. We need to be able to discuss issues based on the merit of the actual issues and not just agree or disagree because of what our favorite politicis says or does.
mountain grammy
(26,693 posts)With our history of genocide, slavery, civil war, apartheid, and general bloodthirstiness, we are always reaching "breaking points."
If our country survives another 250 years, we should reach a higher level of civilization. If that happens, and I hope it does, it will be because citizens reach their "breaking point," stand up and speak truth to power. And we slowly inch forward to the goal of government of, by and for the people. The only question yet to settle is who are "the people?"
We progress, for lack of a better word, from all out war to "targeted drone strikes." Our right wing citizens and their Congress won't go after the administration on this because they love this policy. They may hate the socialist muslim, but his love for the military gadgets that kill is right up their ally. But those of us who see the dangers here find it impossible to support these policies and must continue to make our case to de-militarize our government.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)and always has been.
The only thing currently reigning it in is an Executive Order signed by Ford saying "we don't do that". Congress could use "the power of the purse" to outlaw it, but has failed to do so. For 224 years.
And as for moral compasses, this has bothered some of us for much longer than drones have existed.
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)To say it is OK to target and murder any citizen the federal government deems a terrorist without trial basically negates anything else the criminal Bush family has done to destroy the Constitution. There is a reason Bush, Cheney and Rice were not prosecuted. The powerful protect the powerful without regard to the less powerful. Apparently nothing has changed throughout the history of mankind and nothing will without an upheaval, revolution or outright defiance by the people being oppressed.
To turn this on it's head. The less powerful must protect each other without regard to the more powerful or the less powerful become nothing more than a meat machines that generate labor and money to make the powerful more so.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)He kept that promise and many people died needlessly.
randome
(34,845 posts)In all the fighting and contention, we do SOME good.
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)But hey, ignore that and celebrate the demise of the "bad guys" 'eh?
randome
(34,845 posts)I'm not happy about any of this but I don't see Obama as trying some sort of hypothetical 'power grab', either. A Commander In Chief is the one responsible for making these kind of calculations. Except for Bush, most would have misgivings.
That doesn't mean we do nothing and let Islamic dictatorships take hold.
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)what kind of governments other nations can have. And nobody is saying you have to do nothing. Tyrannical governments can be opposed by a variety of means. Invading their country and slaughtering their people is, in my opinion, not a very good one, and it often alienates the people we're supposed to be "liberating."
lapfog_1
(29,251 posts)We should have had an official declaration of War, and we should have never invaded Iraq. We should have sent 200,000 troops to Afghanistan in the spring of 2002 and arrested, tried and convicted every member of the terrorist group and the "government" that supported them. And then we should have left except for providing Afghans money for modern schools and hospitals and roads and aid to support their farming (I actually would let them legally grow poppies... and then buy all they they can grow).
We killed (targeted) Yamamoto in WWII...
"U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox to "Get Yamamoto." Knox instructed Admiral Chester W. Nimitz of Roosevelt's wishes. Admiral Nimitz consulted Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander, South Pacific, then authorized a mission on 17 April to intercept Yamamoto's flight en route and shoot it down." (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isoroku_Yamamoto )
using drones against leaders of Al Qiada in a war zone ( Pakistan, Afghanistan, parts of north africa) doesn't bother me one bit.
About the "American collaborators"...again, I have no problem targeting them...
I'm very sorry about the collateral damage, but they started the war and their government shielded the people that started it. Don't want war on your doorstep?... don't support a government that supports terrorist organizations that attack the US.
Blood thirsty... maybe... but 3000+ dead Americans say otherwise.
But we should have declared war... and figured out how to declare war against an non-nation state, and we should have declared war zones... and any American in the war zone not in one of our military or intelligence or diplomatic corp... have no reason to be in the war zone and no expectation of safety from our military.
Other than the lack of a declaration of war and war zones, I don't see the difference between now and WWII.
I had no problem with FDR's conduct of WWII. I had huge problems with Bush's conduct of the "WOT", mostly because we tortured people after we captured them, we invaded countries that had nothing to do with the attack on the United States, and it was a Neocon wet dream. I have no problems with President Obama's conduct of the WOT after he took office... except for getting a formal declaration and the fact that we are now 10 years too late.
bhikkhu
(10,730 posts)recalling that we didn't go into the south looking to arrest people, but killed hundreds of thousands without due process.
What people are missing on the whole debate is that broad powers are given to the military in a time of war. War has always been by nature extra-judicial killing, and you can find precedent for the president's position in virtually every war. Its certainly not a "power grab", and the best approach, I think, is to end the wars, which would end the authority of the NDAA.
librabear
(85 posts)Your position is that the civil war was unconstitutional because there was no declaration of war on the south and due process was not followed, right?
bhikkhu
(10,730 posts)...and the point was that due process has always followed a different set of rules in war. Nobody marches into battle to arrest the guys on the other side, regardless of citizenship.
In the civil war, given that one of its premises was the invalidity of the secession, all those soldiers killed in battle were US citizens. Killed for no other reason than that they had taken up arms against the legitimate government.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Of course, I don't belong to a party, so I don't have to worry about "party before country" politics.
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)Don't act like you have ever given Obama a chance.
plethoro
(594 posts)making me ill. I agree with you, Madhound. Simply read the comments here and you can pretty much understand how close we are to setting aside our Constitution for political expediency. This is not surprising to me. What is surprising is some of the liberal statements here. The closest thing I can compare this to is the passive comments about Obama's decision to reduce Social Security deductions. Party and Politics are running second at the 3/8ths post about to make their final move to pass Country and Constitution. Once passed, there will be no reversal--them days is done.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)When this news came out, this board was filled with outrage and horror. Hours later, the corporate propaganda brigade has now littered GD with their predictable rationalizations, justifications, and carefully worded advertisements to justify even this. Even this.
Like the proverbial frog on a slowly warming stove, we got here gradually. And we are still urged by the corporate mouthpieces to believe that reasonable minds can differ...
But let's remember. This is the sort of obscene power grab that many of us here used to invoke years ago as *hyperbole,* to suggest how bad things could possibly get if we allowed corporations to seize control of our government. It was an imaginary, unthinkable dystopian future, in which a President could murder any of us at whim, without need for evidence or due process.
And now we are here. And the relentless propaganda machine rumbles on, telling us that it's okay. No big deal. The one percent spend billions purchasing policy. They spend billions more to shape public reception of that policy. So the advertisements continue, and the distractions and redirections and minimizations and shameless shilling for the unconscionable. And so does the parroting of it all by those who have been relentlessly brainwashed into believing that party trumps everything: even our Constitution and our very lives. Corporate morality is not human morality.
But I am heartened by 100 recs.
K&R Madhound. Thank you very much for this post.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)....if you support the President on any issue, you're part of the "corporate propaganda brigade"??
Seriously??
Do you understand how paranoid that sounds?
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)These folks are an autocrat's best friend. They actually think the drones will keep Americans safe.
Thanks for the OP, but it's depressing that it needed to be said. 
MuseRider
(34,150 posts)I no longer know the country of my birth and am feeling very uneasy about the future of this country.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Since you found your breaking point, your line in the sand, whatever. Yes, this was The Big One. Those worthy of you will be leaving with you, naturally. Those who aren't, well, won't. We're still Democrats. Hopeless party people. Too shallow and stupid to know better. So y'all just run along now. You might get brain-drain if you hang around too long. Do you really want to take that chance?
babylonsister
(171,137 posts)
But I'm sure you're wrong; someone will be around to insult you soon enough. Floyd_Gondolli
(1,277 posts)It has precisely the right amount of "fuck you and your sanctimonious, grandstanding, hysterical bullshit" in it but isn't too tart either. Well done sir!
It's a pity we can't rec responses in threads. This one would have mine.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)This place is likely the only one that even remotely pays attention to them.
Beacool
(30,254 posts)This is not a collective and no one should be forced to accept any and every decision made by politicians just because they happen to be from the party of one's affiliation.
just1voice
(1,362 posts)Last edited Thu Feb 7, 2013, 04:09 AM - Edit history (1)
From the sheer number of ad-hom attacks, a moral compass clearly doesn't exist for many. It's actually frightening how many people will choose party loyalism over torture and assassination of their own citizens.
A woman in Greece said it best "I feel like we've betrayed our children by trading civility for corruption".
busterbrown
(8,515 posts)and then there was a major attack on America either here or abroad. The democrats would be mocked, middle roaders would be driven into fear, the next president would probably be a republican and then the wars of opportunity would begin. This is what we are up against.. I’ll sick with our POTUS.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)He has accelerated the use of drones in a big way. His administration has stood by silently while that same technology is being rolled out by the thousands to be used against American citizens AT HOME. He was all for the extension of the patriot Act. He made no significant effort to close down Gitmo. His administration has done far more Mexican deportations than Bush ever did.
Frankly the only thing in this area I see that is an improvement over Cheney/Bush is that (supposedly) we are no longer doing tortures.
randome
(34,845 posts)It's a simple calculation that only a Commander In Chief is authorized to make.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Implicit in your argument is the belief that we should be killing these people in the first place. I think that is a debatable point. But it gets really ugly when you figure in the fact that we are wrong such a high percentage of the time and end up killing innocents with these "American flying death machines."
Would you acknowledge that there could be some point where this type of thing actually makes American less safe, not more safe?
I think we have long since passed that point.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)tama
(9,137 posts)the breaking point in reality is if and when people stand up together and say no to bipartisan etc. fascism, and yes to global village of caring society.
The real breaking point is the point of reconnecting, the bubble bursting. And that's not about US Constitution, but our common humanity, acceptance of living the same boat, fuzzy warm hearted shit like that.
US Constitution ain't no better, ain't no worse than other religions, other constitutions. What matters is connecting on heart level, and connecting minds and courage with heart.
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)...Oh yeah that's right, they didn't run on time.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Mission accomplished
JEB
(4,748 posts)I wish I got to decide who to take out.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)does NOT mean I have to approve or agree with said paid identities or policy.
tomp
(9,512 posts)....no, i take that back. first translate it into English. you might not have to define it after that.
then, provide evidence regarding the person you are accusing of being such (a very nasty accusation in my book).
then admit that "bad policy" is simply policy you don't agree with.
then, perhaps, reasonable people will take you seriously.
shenmue
(38,506 posts)I'm a baby-eating zombie who loves Satan, and Obama is worse than (name of dictator here).
Or something. Listen, you're not going to snot-and-whine me into your opinion. And yes, you could be wrong.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)eom
WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)is the answer to our problems, what are you teaching me?
Would you want me to use those teachings against you?
Is that the lesson?
alarimer
(16,245 posts)He is clearly a liar. He lied about all kinds of things to get elected. I brushed that off because all politicians do that. I've come to expect nothing but lies from all of them, even Democrats.
But this clearly ILLEGAL (that memo is just ass-covering, the way the torture memo was during the Bush administration) and certainly morally reprehensible policy is the last straw for me.
I think I despise him more than Bush because I expected more.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I regret ever voting for him He is clearly a liar. He lied about all kinds of things to get elected. I brushed that off because all politicians do that. I've come to expect nothing but lies from all of them, even Democrats...I think I despise him more than Bush because I expected more. "
...you'll never have to vote for him again.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)we have always been at war with Eastasia.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)I can never keep those straight.
Sid
Zax2me
(2,515 posts)I'm still in celebration mode.
NoMoreWarNow
(1,259 posts)get real
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)triplepoint
(431 posts)but boiling us just the same...to the same weird FASCISTIC end.
.
.
.
emsimon33
(3,128 posts)He should know better. Bush was a dumb puppet.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)"It is hard to go through life without a moral compass, equally hard to be taken seriously since that is the case."
What is a lot harder is to live with is the delusion that you are somehow the self-appointed judge of what constitutes a moral compass, and expect to be taken seriously in the doing.
aquart
(69,014 posts)I don't care what excuse they give me for assassinating or detaining without trial an American citizen, IT ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH.
kentuck
(111,111 posts)No matter how good its initial intentions. The quote by Jefferson about eternal vigilance is appropriate.
Blue4Texas
(437 posts)
upi402
(16,854 posts)k/r
Kick in to the DU tip jar?
This week we're running a special pop-up mini fund drive. From Monday through Friday we're going ad-free for all registered members, and we're asking you to kick in to the DU tip jar to support the site and keep us financially healthy.
As a bonus, making a contribution will allow you to leave kudos for another DU member, and at the end of the week we'll recognize the DUers who you think make this community great.
