HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » There really is no defens...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:23 PM

There really is no defense of the extra-judicial killings. There just isn't.

Look, I support Obama in general, but this is indefensible. It doesn't make the President an evil figure- life is more complex than that- but this is bad, dangerous policy and denying that, for whatever reason, is dangerous.

Here are two articles which lay out precisely why this is such dangerous, bad policy.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/02/obama-targeted-killing-white-paper-drone-strikes

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/02/what-would-orwell-make-of-obamas-drone-policy/272882/#


61 replies, 3380 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 61 replies Author Time Post
Reply There really is no defense of the extra-judicial killings. There just isn't. (Original post)
cali Feb 2013 OP
Solly Mack Feb 2013 #1
still_one Feb 2013 #2
Freddie Stubbs Feb 2013 #37
still_one Feb 2013 #38
Democracyinkind Feb 2013 #3
Logical Feb 2013 #4
dballance Feb 2013 #29
kardonb Feb 2013 #30
cali Feb 2013 #35
dballance Feb 2013 #36
Logical Feb 2013 #47
kenny blankenship Feb 2013 #5
Agschmid Feb 2013 #6
jsr Feb 2013 #7
WinkyDink Feb 2013 #15
leftstreet Feb 2013 #8
Lydia Leftcoast Feb 2013 #9
leftstreet Feb 2013 #14
daleanime Feb 2013 #18
woo me with science Feb 2013 #19
truedelphi Feb 2013 #28
MisterP Feb 2013 #39
bvar22 Feb 2013 #54
Egalitarian Thug Feb 2013 #34
idwiyo Feb 2013 #49
intheflow Feb 2013 #53
treestar Feb 2013 #59
FredStembottom Feb 2013 #10
kestrel91316 Feb 2013 #11
Fix The Stupid Feb 2013 #12
mwrguy Feb 2013 #13
WinkyDink Feb 2013 #17
Lydia Leftcoast Feb 2013 #20
truedelphi Feb 2013 #56
FSogol Feb 2013 #16
cali Feb 2013 #22
SomethingFishy Feb 2013 #31
locks Feb 2013 #21
Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2013 #23
triplepoint Feb 2013 #24
reACTIONary Feb 2013 #57
LostinRed Feb 2013 #25
Fire Walk With Me Feb 2013 #26
joeybee12 Feb 2013 #27
colsohlibgal Feb 2013 #32
Spitfire of ATJ Feb 2013 #33
ProSense Feb 2013 #40
cali Feb 2013 #42
ProSense Feb 2013 #46
cali Feb 2013 #48
noiretextatique Feb 2013 #41
cali Feb 2013 #43
loveandlight Feb 2013 #44
G_j Feb 2013 #45
woo me with science Feb 2013 #50
liberalmuse Feb 2013 #51
intheflow Feb 2013 #52
bvar22 Feb 2013 #55
treestar Feb 2013 #58
Lydia Leftcoast Feb 2013 #60
AngryAmish Feb 2013 #61

Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:25 PM

1. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:26 PM

2. Congress is going to take it up I believe, however,

with the country sentiment being what it is, I doubt much will happen

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:43 PM

37. Congress could cut off funding for it, just as it did for closing Gitmo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #37)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:52 PM

38. yes, just like they did for Gimo. Excellent analogy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:28 PM

3. There's really not much more to say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:29 PM

4. If Obama does it it must be ok. Jump on board! n-t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:14 PM

29. I Don't Think That's the Prevailing Thought Here on DU

I've seen a lot of people posting their disgust that "our" president is using the same legal tactics we so vociferously opposed when Bush II used them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #29)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:19 PM

30. disgust

folks , I'd rather be safe than sorry . In these days of international terrorism , that is recruiting locals because they are less suspicion-arousing , we MUST use every means to protect our citizens , and our country .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kardonb (Reply #30)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:30 PM

35. oh dear. that's an awfully dangerous way of "thinking"

And I put thinking in quotes because it doesn't seem that you were doing much more than mouthing cliches.


"We MUST use every means to protect our citizens, and our country" has been used to justify some of the most horrendous human rights abuses in history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kardonb (Reply #30)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:41 PM

36. Yes, We Must Use Every LEGAL Means of Protecting Our Contry

We MUST NOT throw out over 200 years of history and jurisprudence where upon we followed the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They guarantee citizens a trial by a jury of their peers. The king used to have the power Obama's legal team now claims any president has. The king could have anyone hanged, drawn and quartered, beheaded, etc. at his will and whim. When our founding fathers wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights they sought to prevent this sort of power being granted to an individual.

To now grant that same power to our president (any president current or future) is an abomination to our Constitution. It is unlikely the "informed, high-level" government officials nor the administration will ever divulge their reasoning for condemning someone without a trial. Their reasoning and even who those officials are who made the determination to execute someone without a trial will always be kept secret as a "Matter of National Security."

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #29)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 04:22 PM

47. I was kidding! I think Obama messed up on this one!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:29 PM

5. No, you don't understand: accusations are evidence

Conclusive proof in fact. And nobody has to hear these accusations but the President*. Nobody has a right to hear them. Nobody has a right to even ask. Nobody even has a right to see the law which says this is the law. It just is.

We live by his leave. In your hands our lives, O Merciful Caesar. That is the whole of the Constitution. It has ever been thus.

* < fine_print > Or if he's too busy, an unnamed official of unspecified rank within the Executive Branch, somewhere. < / fine print >

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:30 PM

6. Kicked...

And frustrated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:36 PM

7. "If a high-ranking administration official does it, it's not illegal."

Dangerous, indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Reply #7)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:53 PM

15. Or, as Nixon stated it, "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:49 PM

8. DURec

Thanks for posting those links

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:01 PM

9. All the talk of "rights to retaliate against insurgents" and "insurrection" is just legalistic

twaddle. Lawyers are trained to defend their clients, even if the clients are indefensible.

The drones SEEM OK to a lot of people because we're bombing faceless brown people who hate the U.S. and live in a faraway country.

But look at it this way. Suppose the government sent drone strikes against American neighborhoods where Mafia figures or seditious right-wing militia leaders lived.

Would we accept the same excuses?

That they were too dangerous to get at by legal means? That the deaths of their children were just "collateral damage"? That if the targeting wasn't accurate and a neighbor's house was blown up instead, that was just too bad, but perhaps the neighbors shouldn't have agreed to let the Mafia boss or militia leader live in their neighborhood?

Come to think of it, our government has actually used the first two excuses in its attack on David Koresh's followers in Waco, Texas, a few years back. The members of the cult, including Koresh, frequently went into town to buy supplies, and the authorities could have arrested them then and there with a minimum of fuss. Noooo, they had to play cowboy and mount a siege and then an attack, and we were told that the children who were killed were just "collateral damage" and that their parents shouldn't have joined the cult.

We see this again and again on the world stage. There's a certain percentage of the population that has never grown out of childish video game revenge fantasies and loves the idea of watching perceived enemies get blown up at a distance, even if they would not be willing to go in themselves and kill a perceived enemy and his wife and children and neighbors with an axe or even a handgun.

And let's get practical here. Killing (not "taking out"--let's be realistic about what we're saying) ONE or even a DOZEN alleged insurgents will make only a negative difference in the bogus War on Terror, because individuals aren't the problem.

First of all, the people killed have friends and extended families, and their cultural norms will require them to seek revenge. Each drone strike creates more terrorists. (If you want to facilitate further corporate dominance and eroded civil liberties by putting the nation on an endless war footing, make sure that you fight an unwinnable war against a vaguely defined enemy whose numbers will only multiply. Such a deal for the military-industrial complex and so easy to have the mass media persuade the uninformed that anything and everything the MIC dreams up is essential for "national security.")

Second, I'm sorry to break the news to all you "America's the greatest country in the world and we're always on the side of truth and justice" grade school patriots, but the REAL problem is and has always been the behavior of successive Republican and Democratic governments in the Middle East. Oil companies call the shots in our system, and in the interests of ensuring a continued, low-priced flow of "our" (our?) oil from the Middle East, U.S. governments have supported anyone who will play nice with the oil companies, no matter how badly they treat their own people. (Our government loved Saddam Hussein for decades before it hated him.)

I'm afraid that in the realm of international relations, America's morality has deteriorated in the past seventy years.

In 1945, the Allies put the surviving members of the German government on trial at Nuremberg. The conclusion was foregone, but the world heard a full account of their crimes before they were executed or imprisoned. We didn't just send soldiers out to kill the top Nazis and their families. (That's what the Nazis did in the countries they conquered.)

So in 1945, we could formally arrest, imprison, and hold trials for the top Nazis, the men who planned to conquer Europe and wipe out all "non-Aryans," and in 2013, we have to send drones to get ONE GUY who may be aiding Al Qaeda (or may not be--we never see the evidence. What if someone being held for the CIA in a foreign prison gave his name under torture just to make the torture stop?) and risk killing his whole family and several of his neighbors?

The system is rotten, infiltrated with blood lust and money lust, and I do blame Obama for going along with it. He has a history of appeasing his opponents, so if the Experts and Very Serious People and Legal Equivocators say that we need to go after individuals with drones, his natural tendency will be to do what they say.

But he IS Commander-in-Chief. He could say NO. He could say, "You know, about Iran, I bet if we didn't have them surrounded on all sides by U.S. military installations, they wouldn't be so belligerent. You know, there are a lot of people in the Middle East who hate us for very good reasons, and why are we always intervening when we only screw up every time we go in there?"

So once again, I am ashamed to be an American.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:53 PM

14. +1

This should be an OP



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:08 PM

18. +2

Definitely should be OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:13 PM

19. Thank you. Please make this an OP. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:13 PM

28. Yes, Obama could say no. But he is quite un-used to doing so.

He could say no to wars, he could say no to fracking, he could say no to the insanity of keeping a drug war against any and everyone going on, at great expense, and loss of liberty to those who are affected.

So why would he say no to drones against people in far away lands, that only a small number of people here in America seem to care about? If the Establishment of Large Corporate Interests has a reason or two to offer him, he'll go along with those Interests.

After all, he is not a leader. At best, he is a politician, and at worst, he is a Nero, letting Springsteen play the fiddle while "Rome" burns.

Such is how things end up, in the final days of an empire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #28)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:53 PM

39. it's even on TVTropes

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheManIsStickingItToTheMan
I've seen this mental jump since November 2000--it's "Dem" to defend a GOP policy from a Dem, and "helping the GOP" if you complain--a very neat trick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #28)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 08:23 PM

54. It is NOT that he just isn't saying NO.

He is actively saying "YES",
and actively participating.
HE is the Keeper of the Death List,
and the one who gives The Nod to his executioners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:26 PM

34. +5

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 04:43 PM

49. K&R please consider reporting this as OP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:59 PM

53. Very well said. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 10:15 PM

59. Who is indefensible?

Please inform American lawyers who it is that is "indefensible." We are too unethical to figure that out.

So there are people who have no right to a lawyer? Interesting. But there are people who have a right to a trial from our country, based on their actions against us abroad. Because you just stated that there are Americans who have no right to a lawyer, in America, before a judicial tribunal in America itself.

Hilarious to be slamming at lawyers when you are demanding that people in Afghanistan or somewhere have rights to use them. I suppose those lawyers would not be scum like the ones in the US defending the indefensible. Funny how being part of terror plots against the U.S. is defensible yet some cases in the U.S. itself are not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:05 PM

10. As I said elsewhere....

.....Democrats uniting to say: this doesn't represent us or our party or American values cannot possibly be a problem.

It's what political parties are supposed to do!

C'mon, DU. Defending this 100% unconstitutional policy is the manifestation of party dysfunction.

Let's be real party members and say Hell no... together.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:40 PM

11. There is if you consider the War on Terror to be an actual war. Well-meaning people

can disagree on whether or not that's the case. Our approach so far does seem to have thrown a monkeywrench into AlQaeda's workings.

If you go abroad to join your nation's enemies in attempting to harm Americans, you deserve whatever bad things befall you as a result.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:49 PM

12. ....



"If you go abroad to join your nation's enemies in attempting to harm Americans, you deserve whatever bad things befall you as a result."

You mean like 9-11? By your logix, wasn't Al-queda justified doing 9-11 because of the US's meddling in their countries? "Blowback", I believe is the term?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:51 PM

13. Absolutely

We didn't give each nazi on the beaches of Normandy a trial, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mwrguy (Reply #13)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:55 PM

17. Excuse me, but that was a declared war among sovereign states, not an extra-judicial attack

on some amorphous, formerly-supported-if-not-actually-created-by-our-CIA group of Middle-Easterners.

And FWIW: Nuremburg Trials, anyone?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #17)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:14 PM

20. Yes, and the War on Terror is and always has been bogus

Terrorism is a tactic, not a country, not an ethnic group, not a religion, not even an ideology. Just a tactic, used by fighters of all political stripes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #20)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 09:44 PM

56. Although I am with you in your statement, let's play

Devil's Advocate. Let's assume that as a nation, we do need to be fanatical at every moment, 24/7 on account of "terrorists."

How does having indefinite detention, without even letting the detained know why they are being detained, help anything? A normal citizen can usually be held for any number of reasons. But maybe not, so maybe there is some wisdom in "indefinite detention." But how does a refusal to tell the detained person what they are being charged with, help anyone or anything?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:54 PM

16. +1. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:19 PM

22. I suggest reading the memo

this is all done with no constraints or review. Simply put, it's too much concentrated and unchecked power in the hands of the executive branch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:22 PM

31. "Thrown a monkey wrench into Al Qaeda's workings"..

How do you know that? We have killed a bunch of Al Qaeda and more have stepped up to take their place. That's progress? What is your idea of winning? Kill them all?

Another thing. Who's word do you take for who is a "bad guy". Say the government kills someone and tells me, "it's ok he was a bad guy". I'm just supposed to take their word for it? Seriously? Pretty Un-American if you ask me. One of the main principles on this nation is that a man is innocent until proven guilty, and that it's better to have a guilty man go free than an innocent man be punished for something he didn't do. We have lost our way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:18 PM

21. Thanks cali

Well said, cali, I had read these articles and many more. I am a strong Democrat but this policy is disastrous for the US and the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:24 PM

23. Bush used the same excuse, "fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here".

And, it's all to reminiscent of "Off with his head" as uttered by other leaders of yore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:56 PM

24. Drone Attack = Act of War

 

Last edited Thu Feb 7, 2013, 06:34 AM - Edit history (4)

--The same result as when Germany sent V1 "Buzz Bombs" into England...except the V1 wasn't as accurate and didn't return from its mission. Our drones are teleoperated/actively guided (human-in-the-loop "radio controlled") while the V1 was autonomous, with a simple autopilot. That's the only control difference that I have noticed about them thus far. If one now realizes that the modern armed drone aircraft is actively human-controlled, then it is virtually human piloted, and achieves results similar or slightly worse than what a human-borne attack aircraft achieves.
.
.

V-1 Buzz Bomb (ancestor of the Cruise Missile)
.
.

Tomahawk Cruise Missile
.
.

Predator Drone
.
..

F-20 Tigershark
.
.
So, this is not much different than what organized crime engages in when it seeks to eliminate its enemies....except of course that the Mafia does it while on the ground. Under international Law, this is very likely illegal. The UN should and I hope it does conclude as much. So, what recourse do they have after that? Do UN member countries sign off on arrest warrants for those who ordered up these assassinations? What about the collateral damage these assassination missions cause? What an effective anti-American sentiment recruiting tool these drone attacks continue to be. Is this the new face of U.S. Hegemony in the World? Is this the "Big Stick" that the late President Teddy Roosevelt said we should carry while walking softly?


Some background info on The V-1 Buzz Bomb
The V-1 was developed at Peenemünde Airfield by the German Luftwaffe during the Second World War. During initial development it was known by the codename "Cherry Stone". The first of the so-called Vergeltungswaffen series designed for terror bombing of London, the V-1 was fired from "ski" launch sites along the French (Pas-de-Calais) and Dutch coasts. The first V-1 was launched at London on 13 June 1944, one week after (and prompted by) the successful Allied landing in Europe. At its peak, more than one hundred V-1s a day were fired at southeast England, 9,521 in total, decreasing in number as sites were overrun until October 1944, when the last V-1 site in range of Britain was overrun by Allied forces. This caused the remaining V-1s to be directed at the port of Antwerp and other targets in Belgium, with 2,448 V-1s being launched. The attacks stopped when the last site was overrun on 29 March 1945. In total, the V-1 attacks caused 22,892 casualties (almost entirely civilians).

V-1 missile or flying bomb or buzz bomb
German missile of World War II. The forerunner of modern cruise missiles, it was about 25 ft (8 m) long and had a wingspan of about 18 ft (5.5 m). It was launched from catapult ramps or sometimes from aircraft; it carried an explosive warhead of almost 1,900 lbs (850 kg) and had an average range of 150 mi (240 km). More than 8,000 V-1s were launched against London in 1944–45, and a smaller number against Belgium. The V-1 guidance system used a simple autopilot to regulate height and speed. A weighted pendulum system provided fore-and-aft attitude measurement to control pitch (damped by a gyrocompass, which it also stabilized). There was a more sophisticated interaction between yaw, roll, and other sensors: a gyrocompass (set by swinging in a hangar before launch) gave feedback to control each of pitch and roll, but it was angled away from the horizontal so that controlling these degrees of freedom interacted: the gyroscope stayed trued up by feedback from the magnetic field, and from the fore and aft pendulum. This interaction meant that rudder control was enough without a separate banking mechanism. A countdown timer driven by a vane anemometer on the nose determined when target range had been reached, accurately enough for area bombing. Before launch the counter was set to a value that would reach zero upon arrival at the target in the prevailing wind conditions. As the missile flew, the airflow turned the propeller and every 30 rotations of the propeller counted down one number on the counter. This counter triggered the arming of the warhead after about 60 km (38 miles). When the count reached zero, two detonating bolts were fired. Two spoilers on the elevator were released, the linkage between the elevator and servo was jammed and a guillotine device cut off the control hoses to the rudder servo, setting the rudder in neutral. These actions led the V-1 into a steep dive. While this was originally intended to be a power dive, in practice the dive caused the fuel flow to cease, which stopped the engine. The sudden silence after the buzzing alerted listeners that the V-1 would impact soon. The fuel problem was quickly fixed and by the time the last V-1 fell, the majority had impacted under full power. Almost 30,000 V-1s were made. Approximately 10,000 were fired at England; 2,419 reached London, killing about 6,184 people and injuring 17,981. The greatest density of hits were received by Croydon, on the SE fringe of London.
.
.




Reference Links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb
http://www.reference.com/browse/buzz-bomb

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to triplepoint (Reply #24)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 09:49 PM

57. Actively guided and less indiscriminate. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:07 PM

25. I agree 100%

Indefensible is right. I support Obama on almost everything but I can't back this it's crazy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:08 PM

26. K&R

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:12 PM

27. Agreed...knr

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:24 PM

32. Totally Agree

Stephanie Miller was driving me nuts this morning, kind of excusing this because it was has not been at the magnitude of Dubya's wars. Yes, the Bush wars were insane and much more massive but that doesn't make this OK.

It's a huge slippery slope. What's wrong with running it past a judge like we did until lately? Even if we assume Obama is on the up and up this is a precedent and who says a future prez might not use this nefariously.

Then there is the "collateral damage". Certainly less than the shock and awe wars but do we really want to create even more people who have a vendetta against the US?

It's what most people here don't get. Other than when we fought each other wars have been elsewhere - and more and more nations will have their own drones and so often what goes around comes around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:24 PM

33. Articles? We don't need no steenking articals!!!

We KNOW the President can't act as judge, jury and executioner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:56 PM

40. Some defenses are posted

here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022322698

"poses a grave threat of such imminence that judicial process is infeasible and lethal force is the only option."

The world isn't black and white.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #40)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 04:00 PM

42. No, it's not, but that still doesn't make this policy defensible.

Any policy that vests that much power in the Executive branch is a mistake. Perhaps you agree with what this president is doing with that power, but what about a right wing republican President? Would you still support a policy that places that much power with no oversight in his/her hands?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #42)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 04:15 PM

46. You're denying that statements?

No, it's not, but that still doesn't make this policy defensible.

Any policy that vests that much power in the Executive branch is a mistake. Perhaps you agree with what this president is doing with that power, but what about a right wing republican President?

Yes, there are exceptions. That's a fact. The agreement doesn't extend to abuse of that power. Just because people can see the validity of an argument doesn't means they agree with a distortion of that argument.

That's like claiming that just because one agrees with raising the speed limit to 55, they support the abuse that leads people to go 65 in that area.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #46)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 04:24 PM

48. I'm sorry but you are just wrong. Have you read the entire memorandum?

It is frighteningly vague. Seriously, don't you think that oversight of some kind would be preferable to no oversight at all?

Here are a couple of good articles:

What Would the Godfather Say

<snip>

Laws that govern the use of lethal force come from several sources, but they typically emphasize similar terms, such as necessity, proportionality and imminence. Additionally, the Constitution promises that citizens will not be deprived of life without due process of law.

The more we learn about the Obama administration’s internal justifications for its targeted killing program, the more obvious it is that words like “imminence” or “due process” can and will be stretched beyond normal usage to accommodate whatever uses of force the president chooses. For example, the Justice Department memo appears to suggest that if an executive official “cannot be confident” that a suspected terrorist is not about to attack, the requirement of an “imminent” threat may be satisfied. And while due process had previously been interpreted to require judicial hearings and other mechanisms to address the risk of government error, the Justice Department’s discussion subordinates concerns about erroneous killing with a vague invocation of “the realities of combat.” In other words, in this memo uncertainty is grounds for violence rather than a reason for deliberation or caution. At worst, this memo evinces the same embrace of executive power that characterized the infamous Bush administration “torture memos.” At best, it reveals a different kind of naiveté – a view of a world in which the great responsibilities of a president necessitate unlimited discretion to do violence.

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/02/05/what-standards-must-be-met-for-the-us-to-kill-an-american-citizen/the-justice-department-thinks-uncertainty-is-grounds-for-violence

One of the most important questions here — perhaps the most important — is not what the legal standard is but who ultimately decides whether the standard is satisfied in any given case. Who decides that a particular person presents a threat sufficient to justify the government’s summarily killing him? The Justice Department contends that the Constitution permits this decision to be entrusted to an “informed high-level official” — with no judicial review before the killing or even after. This is wrong and dangerous.

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/02/05/what-standards-must-be-met-for-the-us-to-kill-an-american-citizen/the-problem-with-relying-on-officials-in-targeting-the-enemy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:59 PM

41. agreed. and if Bush was doing this...

democrats would not be falling over themselves supporting it because of some misplaced sense of loyalty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noiretextatique (Reply #41)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 04:00 PM

43. Most would not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 04:10 PM

44. so agree with you...

thank you for a simple and clear statement. A bad and dangerous policy. That's all there is to it. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 04:13 PM

45. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 05:38 PM

50. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 05:47 PM

51. I've become a huge Obama supporter, but this is WRONG.

Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:58 PM

52. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 08:30 PM

55. Sorry, Cali, but there ARE "defenses" posted all over DU.

However, there is NO Valid, Rational defense.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 10:10 PM

58. That includes all people killed in Hiroshima right?

And all people killed in WWII?

Including those killed by American soldiers?

What's new, the U.S. has been doing this for a long time, and with less precision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #58)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 11:35 AM

60. I have serious reservations about Hiroshima BUT...

that was part of a declared war against a sovereign nation that had attacked the U.S. first.

This is sending missiles into a country that has NOT attacked the U.S. and killing individuals (and anyone else who happens to be nearby) based on possibly faulty intelligence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 11:37 AM

61. I think the term extrajudicial killing is too harsh.

Call it fun times or butterfly poop. It is not a crime if a Nobel Peace Prize winner does it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread