Time to put an end to summary executions and drone strikes in the Middle East.

[Zalatix]

They represent no threat to us except that they want us off of their territory.

We have no reason to be there except to plunder their resources.

We have no reason to kill anyone over there for any reason.

End. It. NOW.

[jberryhill]

1. Yes, let's turn them against medical practices which don't take Medicare!

[Zalatix]

2. Nah, how about turning them against patients who can't afford cash-only doctors?

Right back at you, since you want to troll like that.

[jberryhill]

3. Troll?

If you had a drone, you'd go after bad cops with it.

Your issues seem to have more to do with the selection of targets, than the abuse of power.

[Zalatix]

4. Your first post was an off-topic way over the top attack based on another thread. AKA Trolling.

If you had a drone, you'd go after bad cops with it.

That is an absolute unfounded falsehood. You made that up in your dreams.

I don't support summary executions for anyone. Not bad cops, not the Plutocracy, not anyone. You have absolutely zero chance of ever finding a post by me that supports that shit. Zero.

[jberryhill]

5. How can it be a falsehood?

How is the statement "If you had a drone, you'd go after X" provably true or false?

It would seem to me that the only way to know one way or another would be to give you one.

It was really just a passing reaction to what strikes me as an odd variation in one's view of authority and its uses, to suggest the summary imprisonment of one set of folks in another thread, versus what you perceive as the arbitrary and indiscriminate use of military force.

But since you took it so much more deeply than intended, please excuse my impertinence at having de-railed your 2 AM Sunday morning discussion topic.

[Zalatix]

6. Because it IS a falsehood.

Now you're just weaseling out of what you said. You're trying to sound like an attorney while at the same time torturing logic in the most Midieval of ways.

And you're still not even close to being on-topic.

[jberryhill]

7. Weaseling?

Okay, so, what fact demonstrates the truth or falsity of an absurdly hypothetical proposition as what you would do if given your own personal drone?

Simply using capital letters does not constitute proof.

If you were a dog, what breed would you be? Please provide evidence to back up your answer.

[Zalatix]

9. More off-topic weaseling.

[jberryhill]

10. You'd probably use drones on off-topic weasels, too!

[Zalatix]

11. Going by your troll logic, I could say you'd probably vote Republican.

How can the statement be proven false? It would seem to me that the only way to know one way or another would be to wait until Election Day. Even then we can't know, because all votes are private.

You voting for Romney is just as big a likelihood as me ever wanting to summarily execute someone for anything.

Here's a hint for you: if you put someone in jail you can take them back out. You can't un-kill someone. Throwing someone in jail also requires a trial by jury. Summary executions don't include that.

So now not only are you weaseling out, and not only are you trolling, but your point is also completely illogical. Apples vs oranges.

Let's just admit you have nothing to say about whether you support us being in the Middle East at all (addressed under the sentence "We have no reason to be there except to plunder their resources&quot , and all you wanted to do here was troll.

[jberryhill]

12. It can be proven false quite easily

Since I post using my real name, you can check out things like my record of political contributions at opensecrets.org, or having punked Dick Cheney in real time (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12901-2004Oct6.html)

IMHO, if more people actually stood behind their words on the Internet, trolling wouldn't be much of an issue.

But, no, you continue to miss my point, which is that you have wildly irreconcilable views of the role and use of authority. Some of you ardently held positions do not seem to fit together well.

But, absolutely, I've even signed up for the Adopt-a-Drone program run by the DoD. For $50 a month, you sponsor a drone, and they send you back pictures of each child it kills. Right from the gun camera. Top that, Alyssa Milano.

[Zalatix]

13. That's not proof of how you vote at the ballot box. It is evidence, but not proof.

Proof is your actual voting record. And that, fortunately, is impossible to obtain.

And once again, you fail to understand the vast difference between jailing someone AFTER PASSING LEGISLATION AND AFTER A TRIAL BY JURY, and sending out a drone to kill someone without a trial, or even without passing any laws. You don't understand that one is EXTRAJUDICIAL and one is not.

You don't understand that being arrested for committing a crime is something you can undo with the help of an attorney, or maybe even pro-se. You can't undo being killed by a drone.

You can't understand these basic facts. They're beyond you.

You know what, you could have actually hurt me by jumping on me the next time I talk about the prison-industrial complex. Hell, I'm GIVING YOU THAT ONE. Because you failed so horribly here that you so desperately need a helping hand in your misguided crusade.

[jberryhill]

14. Yeah, unfortunately, I'm a complete nincompoop about law

Nobody in Hiroshima got a trial either. But unless and until there is a legal challenge, which can be done, the apparent underlying rationale is that these are military operations in an unconventional assymetric war.

That rationale might hold up, and might not, but what we really need to do as a country is to re-visit the War Powers Act in light of changed assumptions and approaches to warfare.

What you don't seem to understand is that you have not been appointed to a federal court as a judge, nor do you have opposing briefs before you on the subject on which you are empowered to rule.

It is your opinion that these do not constitute legitimate military targets or operations, and you are uncomfortable with the discretion in the use thereof which has thus far been assumed by the office of the president in the conduct of these operations. It is certainly a subject which, if we had a rational legislature at the moment, deserves attention.

I share your concerns, but do not see it as black and white as you do.

When we passed the last revision of the War Powers Act, the assumption was that there are circumstances in which military force may be used, and the president has discretion to use it for a limited period of time - to actually commit troops to a conflict of his or her choosing - before having to report to Congress on continuing authorization to maintain engagement.

What we have now is a warfighting infrastructure which is not consistent with the underlying assumptions of the War Powers Act. The WPA more or less assumes that warfighting will involve a significant commitment of troops and material, but there are finer tools now - i.e. drones, that lead to this kind of low-intensity, low-commitment type of conflict.

What I do not share with you is your black and white view of the situation. For example, we have for several decades now, committed complete discretion in the president's authority to launch nukes. The president has the complete legal authority to launch the entire arsenal at Canada, if he or she feels grumpy one morning. Against that background, the use of drones abroad pales in comparison on the scale of gut-level legal acceptability.

In terms of legality, generally, it may well be that there is too much discretion vested in the office of president on the use of force - any force - without adequate review and oversight. But if it is your across the board position that the president has no discretion in the use of military force for objectives of national security, then that has not been anything resembling the relevant legal framework for a long time.

If you wanted to press the issue on a piece of legislation that would outright ban presidential discretion on the use of military force, that would be guaranteed not to pass, no matter what the composition of the legislature.

The situation with the use of drones is not one in which anyone can declare it to be "illegal" with such certainty and without reservation, in the context of presidential discretion in the use of military force abroad generally. I'm sorry but I do not think it is as simple as you believe it is, and your declaration that my disagreement with you arises from some inability to understand what is legal and what is not is an indication that you really don't know me very well.

[Zalatix]

22. I used to support the Hiroshima bombing due to the black and white logic of

comparing the lives lost from that, to a full-scale invasion of Japan.

There was in fact a third way out: Japan had no access to oil reserves. We could simply have starved their military capacity. IMO the war was won on both ends the moment we cut them off from their oil supply. The conventional bombings of cities could be justified by the fact that we didn't have cruise missiles or STUXNET back in the day. That most certainly is NOT the case now.

Yeah, things aren't black and white. My opposition to the use of summary execution is based on that. I also do not count shooting in self-defense to be the same as a summary execution. If you have enemy CBR's moving into position to strike, you should hit them. If you have an army moving to attack you, you should hit them.

The "terrorists" in the Middle East fail to meet either standard. No CBR's being deployed against America, and nobody moving to strike against America. They're merely defending their own turf against us.

Of course we can talk about the War Powers Act and all that stuff, but when it comes to the Middle East, they fail ALL of the necessary requirements that even remotely justify shooting or bombing anyone over there. It's their turf. And when it comes to any use of American force in that region, we are the aggressors.

I know you don't have any family who has been killed by troops, bombers or drones, so I understand why you see this in shades of gray. I know you are an American and you enjoy the privilege of being immune from extrajudicial executions, so again, I understand why you see this in shades of gray. You can't possibly imagine what it's like to be a poor farmer whose kid just got blown up because they were standing in the same market bazaar next to someone that some mysterious empire across the ocean has arbitrarily DECLARED to be a terrorist. What I can tell you, though, is for that farmer whose kid got blown up, it is quite black and white: there was no reason for America to do that. No reason for his kid to die. None.

A civilized society doesn't look for shades of gray when it comes to actions that endanger innocent lives in a place they have no business being, to begin with.

[jberryhill]

30. Well, I do not support the bombing of Hiroshima

I believe the bombing of Hiroshima was thoroughly unjustified, and that the story of the ongoing surrender negotiations is something that gets short shrift in the argument for its necessity.

Same with Dresden.

However, you are confusing morality with law.

On the question of whether Truman had the legal authority to order the use of the bomb in Hiroshima, I tend to believe he did.

Whether or not it was right, is an entirely different question.

So, given your changed view on Hiroshima, do you further contend that Truman did not have the legal authority to order the bombing?

If you think that "legal" and "right" have a necessary relationship to each another, then I don't think I'm the one who doesn't understand law.

[Zalatix]

32. As I said downthread, moral right isn't the same as legal right.

I would most certainly see what is legal and what is moral to be vastly separated from each other, logically (and usually practically) speaking.

[msanthrope]

17. No. It's you who won't listen to attorneys explain to you, yet again, that what you claim is not

legally accurate.

[Zalatix]

23. It is NOT legally accurate. You are in fact quite wrong.

There is in fact a vast difference between jailing someone AFTER PASSING LEGISLATION AND AFTER A TRIAL BY JURY, and sending out a drone to kill someone without a trial, or even without passing any laws. One is EXTRAJUDICIAL and one is not.

That is legally accurate. That is an undisputable fact.

[jberryhill]

34. The law requires no trial of anyone for the president to launch nukes at will

So we have this odd position where:

Wipe out entire cities with sole discretion = legal

Order a drone strike = illegal

Military combat involves a lot of extrajudicial killing, and there is a vast legal framework which you toss aside in your race to a conclusion on this particular novel aspect of the use of military force. What I know is that I do not have a whole lot of depth in that area of law, but have enough to believe that your continued conclusory declarations do not suggest much in the way of knowledge of relevant case law on the use of military force on which such conclusions are based.

Given this situation, I believe it is extremely important, and I believe the relevant law on presidential warfighting discretion renders it extremely important, for the American public not to lightly hand this power to an untrustworthy person. It is unfortunate that while our system is one which is designed to not depend on the trustworthiness of any person who may be elected to office, that is the situation we have in the continued historical cycles of expansion and contraction of presidential warfighting power. What is "legal" or "illegal" in terms of the conduct of ostensibly military engagement is something that changes with time and circumstances.

And, again focusing on the limited input I have into this system, what is ultimately legal or illegal depends on the caliber of people who are nominated and seated on the Supreme Court.

I do not know the extent to which the president reports or confers with the relevant Congressional bodies over the selection of targets or the use of drones. The situation may call for an update of the War Powers Act, as I've said above, to ensure there is adequate review of the use of these things.

But you are not going to get to an endpoint where there is no discretion vested in that office as to the use of military force as a blanket proposition. I would further believe that if the situation were so clear as to constitute an outright abuse of presidential authority in the conduct of military operations, that the GOP controlled House would have no problem whatsoever drafting a bill of impeachment to that effect, if there was so much as a fingernail hold to be had on that argument.

[Zalatix]

39. My post was in reference to my stand on politics, not what the President's authority is.

My stance is always about due process, trials, evidence-finding. Saying I would support a drone strike on a doctor is in direct contradiction to that. To put him in jail you need a trial.

Indefinite detention under the NDAA has also been ruled unconstitutional, pending an inevitable SCOTUS showdown. Which leads me to believe that the President also cannot order a drone strike on a US citizen on US soil...

[sabrina 1]

41. Legal doesn't mean 'right'. And while lawyers may choose to simply accept bad laws and operate

under them, we the people have no such obligation thankfully. Our duty is to speak out against that which is obviously wrong. That is the beginning of how bad laws get changed.

Drones are being sold now to other nations. What happens when THEY decide to use them against us? What happens when some Chinese equivalent of the CIA sits thousands of miles away and targets someone in the US who according to them, is an 'enemy combatant' and in the process kills innocent children and other bystanders?

It's only a matter of time before these weapons are in the hands of other countries. I hope that those who are supporting their misuse by the US will be equally supportive of their misuse by any other nation who decides to follow our example.

My position and the OP's will be the same, consistently opposed to the murder of innocents regardless of who is doing it.

[Zalatix]

42. I think there is some confusion among some about my OP.

My OP did not say we don't have a LEGAL justification. My OP said we don't have a REASON to be in the Middle East.

We're the world's biggest baddest bully, we can be anywhere we want to be. Sadly speaking. But we don't have a REASON to be. We have no justification, no moral imperative, no just cause, to be there in the Middle East.

There is no threat to us there.

[msanthrope]

51. Um--when you conveniently forget the AUMF of 9/18/01, you indicate that you have no idea

the legalities involved.

Let me put it this way.

You are arguing the batting position of the DH. During the Reds/Giants game.

[sabrina 1]

18. Did you support Bush's invasion of Iraq?

[jberryhill]

27. Ha, no I did not

Did he have the legal authority to do so? Yes, he did.

[Zalatix]

29. Legal authority and moral authority are two different things.

If we break everything down to 'legal authority' then we're pretty much fucked. Any tyrant or tyrant-wannabe* can make anything legal.

*And in this case the tyrannical behavior happened long before Obama got into office.

[jberryhill]

36. Okay, then you can stop going on about the "illegality" of drone strikes

...and concentrate on the immorality of it.

That's fine.

But with all your talk about legislatures, and trials and judicial authority... I had the impression you had something to say about legality.

So, okay:

Guy elected by people to limited term decides to kill someone = illegal

Guy appointed to life term and subject to no election decides to kill someone = legal

That is your distinction between "extrajudicial" killing and "judicial" killing.

Frankly, I don't even support the death penalty, so this distinction doesn't mean much to me on a moral level.

[Zalatix]

40. A drone strike, on a US citizen on US soil?

I do believe THAT is illegal. It's far worse than indefinite detention which is unconstitutional pending an inevitable SCOTUS hearing.

[sabrina 1]

31. Then you must have loved Saddam Hussein, no?

[jberryhill]

35. No

The no-fly zones were adequate to contain any hypothetical threat he posed.

You seem to think we were not already engaged in a conflict with Iraq. That is a tremendous oversimplification.

What we had at the end of the first Bush administration was a framework for rendering Saddam not to be a further threat to regional stability. This framework was maintained through the Clinton administration with regular patrols and strikes against installations which threatened the stability of the no-fly zones.

[Zalatix]

43. I'm not sure if you fully got the point of my OP.

My OP never mentioned a LEGAL right, or a lack of a LEGAL right to be in the Middle East.

My OP said there was no REASON to be there, aside to plunder resources.

Reason and legal right are two different things.

[msanthrope]

54. So you agree, then, that you don't have a legal argument, but an emotional one? nt

[Zalatix]

65. My OP wasn't discussing the LEGALITY of it at all.

We have no LOGICAL reason to be in the Middle East, except to plunder their resources.

Logically show me what justifies us being there, besides plundering their resources.

[msanthrope]

68. Take a look at the Gulf of Aden on a map. Now, what do you see? nt

[Zalatix]

71. I see Somalia and Pirate Alley

In case you are ignorant of history, the Somali pirates over there started because FOREIGN ships came and started stealing their fish and dumping garbage AND NUCLEAR WASTE in their waters.

Please read and be educated.

http://www.iftf.org/node/3052

It is foreign nations who are the aggressors in the Gulf of Aden, not Somalia.

[msanthrope]

74. And what else? nt

[Zalatix]

76. Nothing that represents an invasion risk or an attack risk on the United States.

[msanthrope]

92. Look harder. nt

[jberryhill]

85. Ah, yes, the seafaring environmental activists of Somalia

...the most misunderstood green movement on the planet.

[Zalatix]

89. If someone started dumping nuclear waste in America's waters and stealing our fish

you better fucking believe we would kick their asses, blow their shit up, and perhaps even go to war.

Why are you so disdainful of Somalia's right to do the same?

[jberryhill]

91. People have done those things in American waters

But since you joined here a few months ago, I understand you are unaware of the extensive discussions held at DU in the past on this tragically misunderstood Mogadishu branch of Greenpeace.

If you really want to feel badly for them, I suggest spending time with regular folks in Nairobi, and ask them about what has been driving real estate prices there. The Somali seafaring environmentalists have been focusing much of their efforts on investing in commercial property in downtown Nairobi, because nothing says "clean the ocean" like owning a block of retail and office space for rental income.

Figuring out what to do with excess millions in cash is really something of a problem, and they could use a sharp feller like you to help them out with that.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1978764,00.html

[EX500rider]

72. "...aside to plunder resources."

Who's resources are we "plundering"?

Seems to me we pay upwards of $80-$90 a barrel for oil from the middle east.

[Zalatix]

75. Saddam Hussein was invaded because he planned to sell oil in Euros instead of dollars.

Which would have made oil a lot more expensive. That's just ONE example.

[EX500rider]

77. When the Euro is strong it would cost more..

....when it is weak to the dollar it would cost less.

Still not a example of any "plundering". Either way we still pay for the oil.

[Zalatix]

78. Yes it is an example of plundering. WE INVADED A NATION to keep oil cheap!

A whole fucking nation! We killed a leader and instigated a civil war that killed tens of thousands just so we could keep oil prices from going up... which happened anyway.

[JackRiddler]

82. Your mistake starts at "we."

There is no "us," that is an illusion that enabled the war that they started for their own reasons, among which cheap gas for you would have been - nothing worth considering.

Their failure to plunder quite as thoroughly as planned doesn't say they didn't try.

[sabrina 1]

44. I was simply applying your logic to the situation. If you DON'T support one thing, then

you must support the other. This is what you are using against the OP. I certainly agree with your characterization of this kind of logic as 'over-simplication'. I never engaged in it, and always knew it was merely a tactic with no basis in fact.

As for our decades long involvement in the affairs of Iraq going back to when we installed Saddam Hussein and supported him right through the entire Reagan Administration, I oppose and would have back then had I been involved politically, have opposed our murder of their elected leader in order to install our puppet, Saddam Hussein.

It's way past time to change these disastrous, Cold War policies which were wrong from the beginning. The support of right wing dictators all over the world and the destruction of democratic governments under the pretext it was for our 'national security'. It never was, it was as it still is, for power and control of their natural resources, in the ME, Africa and South and Central America. And those policies were always and still are abhorrent and dangerous to innocent human beings all over the world.

We are NOT an Empire, at least not according to our Constitution. But that is how we have been acting for many decades now. Someone needs to stand up and restore this Democracy NOT give in to the laws that were wrongfully passed to ensure our Imperial goals.

[treestar]

8. Wasn't there some leader of France

Who it was perfectly OK to kidnap?

Or a banker, I believe it was.

[bluestate10]

15. I am ok with that, when terrorists leaders put an end to summary executions

of innocent people that were going about their daily lives when murdered.

[sabrina 1]

19. Then you agree with the tactics of terrorists. Do we solve murders by murdering them

without trials or even charges? Do you believe in our Constitution btw?

[msanthrope]

21. How is the AUMF of 9/18/01 not Constitutional? nt

[sabrina 1]

37. So you support the Bush Doctrine then?

[msanthrope]

49. I asked you a question. What is unconstitutional about the AUMF, passed by Congress? And, no. nt

[sabrina 1]

60. I didn't support the AUMF and after seeing who voted for it, they never got my support

when they ran for President which is one of the reasons I supported Obama over Hillary.

Did you support it? The only reason why anyone would have supported that legislation is because they believed the lies Bush was telling. Or because they were afraid of looking 'soft on terror'. Neither was a legitimate reason to vote for it.

Anything that upsets the balance of powers, the gives away Congress' power to the Executive Branch, is unconstitutional. Unless you don't believe in the balance of powers and are willing to support legislation based on lies out of fear or out of partisanship.

[msanthrope]

61. The one of 2001, yes. The one of 2002, no. n t

[Zalatix]

24. Quote of the century. We don't beat terrorists by BECOMING terrorists.

[wtmusic]

69. I get all misty when someone uses the "T" word

just like Dubya taught them to

[Zalatix]

80. Define Terrorist in a way that points to the Middle East's actions and not our military's...

[wtmusic]

81. I can't.

You got me.

[Zalatix]

83. LOL sorry, that wasn't actually directed at YOU. It was intended to boost your point.

[woo me with science]

16. Crossing sovereign borders of countries with which we are not at war

to make drone strikes, and murdering civilians in the process, is wrong.

Party affiliation has nothing to do with it.

[msanthrope]

20. I'd have been just fine with a drone strike to Bin Laden under Bush. You? nt

[Zalatix]

25. So let's say Afghanistan launches a drone to strike at American troops who killed civilians there?

What would you say then?

Oh, I know, "It's different when it's America", right?

[msanthrope]

55. You really think that's going to happen? nt

[Zalatix]

64. Of course not, we're the big bad global bully.

You know, it helps to look at the world from the shoes of other peoples.

Jesus, me, the DU resident (alleged by many) nationalist, can empathize with the suffering of innocent people being hit by bombings, but all the "we are the world" people can't be bothered to give a shit? WTF...

[woo me with science]

28. Your wish, and the American people's wish, to get Bin Laden

in no way justifies the morally abhorrent POLICY, now being pursued in *multiple* countries across the Middle East, of crossing sovereign borders and attacking and slaughtering human beings including civilians, when we are not at war with such countries.

Do you claim it does?

And would you support the morality of this policy if it were another nation doing it to us? Obama instituted cyberwarfare against Iran, even though there is no legal declaration of war between our countries. Would you defend Iran's right to swoop in with drones and bomb civilians in Arlington, Virginia, because they deemed someone there was probably associated with those attacks?

Your argument here is emotional and manipulative. It is also irrelevant, because Bin Laden was killed without a drone strike.

[msanthrope]

53. What justifies the drone strikes is the AUMF of 9/18/01, and the cooperation of the countries

involved.

I think your argument fails because you fail to account for stateless actors. I think a more global outlook--beyond mere nation-state--is essential.

[woo me with science]

56. My argument "fails" because you refuse to address it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021430530

I was going to post this link, but I just read through it and saw that you ignored Khar's own statements and ignored the questions posed to you there, just as you do here.

I used to try to have this discussion with Republicans under Bush. I am not interested in repeating that experience.

[msanthrope]

57. Woo, let's stop pretending that Pakistan isn't playing both sides of this game---

The Pakistani government takes our money and doesn't do anything about the drone strikes--like call them off or go to the UN, because striking Warziristan is to their benefit, too.

That Pakistan whips up anti-American sentiment when it can should be no surprise--the ruling Party isn't stupid. A pro-American stance isn't going to get them reelected. So they pay public lip service to not wanting the drone strikes, while providing intelligence on who to hit.

Khar can say whatever in public--the idea that America is striking in Pakistan without that government's tacit approval is laughable.

[Zalatix]

79. +1,000!

[neverforget]

84. Don't you know? AUMF trumps all. Gives us authority to kill at will.

[sabrina 1]

38. No, I would not mainly because he was never even charged with being involved in 9/11.

I would have supported Bush providing his evidence of that claim to Afghanistan who stated that with evidence, they would hand him over.

He WAS charged with the Embassy bombings, but that was not what Bush accused him of. Bush accused him of being the master mind of 9/11 yet the US Government never charged him with that crime. And when asked why he was never charged, the answer was 'we did not have the evidence to do so'.

Do you support the death penalty when there is no evidence of the crime for which it is applied?

[msanthrope]

50. He was killed in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. nt

[sabrina 1]

59. What has that got to do with my comment?

You said you would have supported Bush killing him. My comment was in response to that. I explained why I would not have supported Bush killing him. So what does where he died have anything to do with that conversation?

I guess it was a way to change the subject and avoid answering the question I asked.

[msanthrope]

62. You wrote about Afghanistan turning him over. They didn't have him....Pakistan did. nt

[sabrina 1]

63. I wrote that in response to your statement that you would have supported Bush

killing him. Is this hard for you to understand? Bush is not the president right now. If you would have supported Bush, then you were talking about when OBL was in Afghanistan and you, you claim, would have supported Bush, you did not say Obama, you said Bush, killing him.

I assumed you knew that Bush is no longer president and were speaking about WHEN BUSH WAS president.

[msanthrope]

67. OBL was in Pakistan for most of the Bush presidency. But I would have supported a drone strike in

either country if it had gotten Bin Laden.

[sabrina 1]

87. OBL was in Afghanistan when the Taliban made the offer to hand him over.

Is there something so difficult about that fact that after so many comments you still do not understand it?

Or maybe stop trying to play 'gotcha' and try to engage in some normal dialogue for a change.

I will repeat again what you tried to turn into a 'gotcha' moment and failed completely.

You said you would have supported Bush killing OBL.

I said I would not have done so BUT would have supported Bush providing the evidence that he claimed to have that OBL was responsible for 9/11 (something we still do not know because now we just kill people and by doing so, keep the American people in the dark)to the Taliban. They would have then handed him over. THAT is what I supported, iow the rule of law.

Do you support the US Constitution on due process btw?

[msanthrope]

93. Wait a minute--Are you doubting that OBL did 9/11?? You don't think OBL did 9/11?

Did I read that right?

Well, that would explain quite a bit.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. But..but..we're murdering them for their own good..to spread democracy and stuff.

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you." Friedrich Nietzche

[Zalatix]

33. Bingo.

[Nye Bevan]

45. Is there an advantage to addressing this issue now as opposed to 1 month from now? (nt)

[Zalatix]

48. Nope. In fact I'll be sure to address this issue at the proper time.

Now I just need to know who I need to talk to that knows when the proper time is to address various issues.

[wtmusic]

70. Maybe for the people who will be blown to smithereens between now and then

but hey, whatever's good for you will work for them...

[Puregonzo1188]

73. Dead children don't know how to wait until after the election?

Jeez what's wrong with them, they must really want a Romney presidency getting killed by a drone and all when they should focusing on re-electing the President!

[jberryhill]

86. Next month it will not be useful to advance the "they're all the same" thing

You do not understand the point.

The point is that there is no real difference between the GOP and Democrats, so you might as well not vote.

[sabrina 1]

88. Yes, for those who will be the victims of more drone attacks between now and then.

The situation is urgent. Unless the lives of people 'over there' are less valuable than lives 'over here'. For me it makes no difference, lives are in danger, and waiting one month is not an option if one life can be saved. Not only that, but it is election season, this is the very best time to get the attention of those who have a say in who lives and who dies.

After the election is too late. They don't care what we think or want, except during election season.

[sad sally]

46. Some Americans are expressing what you're saying, but will take louder voices, more outraged

citizens to end this barbaric war method of killing. It took more than us "hippies" protesting to point out the disasters of the Vietnam War - to end the the Drone War(s) it will take a movement - not sure if there are enough people (besides those under attack) who care...

CODEPINK Anti-Drone Delegation Brings Message of Solidarity to Tribal Areas in Pakistan Off-Limits to Foreigners for a Decade

WASHINGTON - October 7 - On the eleventh anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, 31 American peace delegates representing the U.S. peace group CODEPINK joined political leader Imran Khan and Pakistanis at a rally against U.S. drone strikes in Hatala, Pakistan, near the border between D.I. Khan and South Waziristan. The delegates traveled to the tribal areas in solidarity with the people of Waziristan who have been terrorized by U.S. drone attacks since 2004. This was the first time that the Pakistani government has admitted foreigners into the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) in nearly a decade.

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2012/10/07

[Zalatix]

66. Code Pink! I know their donation URL almost by heart.

http://codepink.salsalabs.com/o/424/shop/custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=191

[Whovian]

47. Let's just get the hell out of the ME and leave them to thier own devices.

I'm really tired of our country being used by big oil as a truncheon.

[darkangel218]

52. The drone attacks are fuking stupid.

How can possibly someone from hundreds of miles away know what or who they're destroying/killing? It's not a video game.

[sagat]

90. No.

.