Skip to main content
Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 06:50 AM PST
by Tom TomorrowFollow for Comics
Click to embiggen
Visit TT's fabulous online emporium!
Add keywords that describe this diary.
Separate multiple keywords with commas.
- Search For Tags
- Browse For Tags
More Tagging tips:
A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?
Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.
If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office.
CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.
Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.
Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary:
Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House.
If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state
Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries
that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.
You must be a member of a group to use this feature.
Tom Tomorrow's most recent book is TOO MUCH CRAZY from Soft Skull Press.
by Tom Tomorrow on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 06:50:06 AM PST
if Tom Tomorrow has been reading Armando. ;-)))
by corvo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 06:54:04 AM PST
was an embarrassment to this site.
by david mizner on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:29:47 AM PST
[ Parent ]
the essence of this site.
by corvo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:31:21 AM PST
Most people here were down on it, and at least a few of the f-pagers wouldn't have co-signed.
I'm not one to underestimate the conservatism and/or Democratic tribalism of this place, but I don't discern a whole lot of support for drones.
by david mizner on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:21:35 AM PST
where one is likely to see criticism of Administration policies at all. That's pretty devastating.
by corvo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:26:39 AM PST
it's called Orange State, for example. Other sites that aren't as friendly to the President are considered hate sites by many here, like firedoglake. If more people knew about Voices on the Square I'm sure that would also be vilified. HuffPo is more critical of the President than dKos by a longshot, and is therefore called a tabloid.
But you might be right, since I don't know all the Democratic sites. Maybe the ones I know of are more critical and maybe there are a lot that get behind the Administration all the time. I don't, for example, go to the Motley Moose. I hear Deaniac has a site, whatever that might be. Maybe I live a sheltered life and don't see all the cheerleading.
by Shahryar on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 12:17:07 PM PST
haven't been reading Firedoglake.
Start with this frontpaged piece:
"There's nothing heroic about earning profit." -Odo, from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
by Cassiodorus on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 12:36:44 PM PST
Any site to the left of Daily Kos isn't 'Democratic', it's 'those insane fringers who probably voted Green in 2000, kill them all!' (This is not a new development... dKos and a LOT of the left have seen anyone further left of them as more of a threat than the Republicans are more or less since they were founded. Unfortunately, both sides in American politics subscribe to the same maxim: 'I am the center. Anyone to my right is dangerous and should be handled carefully. Anyone to my left is insane and should be disregarded.')
So by that definition, this is indeed one of the few 'Democratic' sites where one is likely to see criticism of the Administration at all.
by Fred Fnord on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:35:06 PM PST
Firedoglakes's "About us" identifies the site as an entity of, or an entity supporting, the Democratic Party. In fact it's probably no coincidence that FDL is regularly slammed on this site for its frequently anti-Democratic commentary.
Care to try again?
by corvo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:54:02 PM PST
have the mistaken belief that good ethics come down from good law as opposed to the other way around.
by stevej on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:34:20 AM PST
reading of the law -- especially international law -- was bad.
by david mizner on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:36:12 AM PST
I must admit.
by stevej on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:40:13 AM PST
Shocked and very disappointed. It was just dreck, poorly reasoned dreck in defense of terrible, unconstitutional injustice.
by SethRightmer on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:11:07 AM PST
Myself, I was surprised he restrained himself long enough to reserve the personal attacks for the comments . . .
by corvo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:19:42 AM PST
Otherwise progressives will fracture the same way they did during LBJ's tenure.
by Progressif on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:07:28 AM PST
did i read that right?
by sij on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:27:07 AM PST
In this case, the question is "Is criticizing President Obama on his drones policy going to make it harder to elect more and better Democrats?"
In this case, no, I don't think so -- and I support the drone and targeted assassination policy. Not criticizing it will not strengthen the party; it will weaken it. The only case where anyone should shut up is just before an election, when we know exactly what the choices on the ballots are.
by demimondian on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 02:42:17 PM PST
"Supporting Obama" and "Criticizing bad policy" are two very different things. It is possible to support a president while disagreeing, even vehemently disagreeing, with some of his policies.
by SethRightmer on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:55:41 AM PST
I make no apologies for chanting that.
Johnson deserved that and worse. The destruction of Vietnam trumped all his domestic achievements. If the "fracturing of progressives" was part of the price we paid for putting our bodies in the path of the War Machine...
so be it.
When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...
by PhilJD on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:58:51 AM PST
I always thought leaders had responsibilities, and had to earn their support.
by corvo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:01:08 AM PST
assholes wanted to keep murdering Vietnamese children no matter what the cost, and the weren't about to compromise and nominate McGovern.
A morally bankrupt bigot bent on a campaign of ongoing genocide was nominated. The problem is not that people did not then throw all their support behind him.
The problem is that he was nominated.
"I have often seen people uncivil by too much civility, and tiresome in their courtesy." Michel de Montaigne
by JesseCW on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:29:31 PM PST
McGovern didn't run until 1972. But I take your point. Had Humphrey not been literally forced on us in Chicago, no riots, and McCarty would have won. Can you imagine the world had he been president for 8 years?
by Nada Lemming on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 06:15:01 PM PST
Is the problems that drones are being used in warfare to kill people, or is the problem that we are at war at all?
Drones kill innocent people that are near the strike. All warfare kills innocent people that are near the strike.
Drones are used to kill American citizens when they are near the enemy when we strike. All warfare kills American citizens if they are near the enemy when we strike. If Americans are working with our enemies during war, they may just get killed.
I guess my stated opinion is that drones are not, in themselves, the problem. The problem is that after a full Obama term of office, we are still at war.
by Carlsson on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:24:09 PM PST
kills a lot of innocent people.
That's not the only way to wage war, and truth be told, if that were not the way this country wages war there would likely be no Al Queda.
by JesseCW on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:31:02 PM PST
Innocent life is lost whenever there is war. There is no war without innocent people being killed. Ever.
by Carlsson on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 02:52:34 PM PST
innocent life, it kills a lot of people.
That's not the only way to wage war.
It takes a special depth of moral bankruptcy to become the target of Tom Tomorrow.
by JesseCW on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 03:29:21 PM PST
It is illogical to say that there is a way to wage war without killing innocent people. There has never been such a war. Why would anyone think there would or could ever be one?
by Carlsson on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 04:22:22 PM PST
what Jesse wrote.
To put it in real small words: When you conduct a war with regard for innocent life, you will kill innocent people.
When you conduct a war without regard for innocent life (which is what Jesse wrote), you will kill a whole lot more innocent people.
by gharlane on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 04:31:07 AM PST
Are wars fought with regard for innocent life? Can you name one?
It remains my opinion that the results of a war in which there is regard for innocent life is the same as a war in which there is no regard for innocent life.
And returning to my original point about the use of drones - perhaps instead of protesting the use of a particular weapon in the execution of a war we should be protesting the war.
by Carlsson on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 11:07:01 AM PST
regard for innocent life.
That you advocate it does not make it the only option open to us.
by JesseCW on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 07:22:27 PM PST
by Carlsson on Thu Feb 14, 2013 at 10:00:32 AM PST
that you can do both? You can't protest both a war (or, in this case, "war") and against a particular weapon or tactic used in that war ("war")?
We couldn't protest the Vietnam War as a whole and still be extra-horrified at, and protest separately, napalm and Agent Orange? That there was a particular extra-special disregard for human life and dignity involved in the use of those tools, above and beyond what normally occurs in a war?
In any event, it's important to remember the context. Tom's cartoon is not primarily about drones per se. It's a cartoon, remember? It's what Tom does and how he does it. The drone is a metaphor for the horrifying erosion of civil liberties that this "war" has prompted -- most immediately relevant, the executions without trial (both of American citizens and noncitizens). THAT's the issue. And of course, this ridiculous, endless, limitless, battlefield-is-everywhere "war" provides the perfect excuse for this particular exercise of tyranny (there's really no other word for it, when one branch of government can decide on its own, secretly and without review, serving simultaneously as prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner, that someone is a Terrorist and execute them without review by a court). The drones just make it that much easier, cheaper, and more comfortable. And as far as I'm concerned, that's reason enough to protest the drones over and above protesting the "war".
by gharlane on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 11:07:34 PM PST
by JesseCW on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 07:20:55 PM PST
...is that we aren't 'at war', anywhere except for Afghanistan and arguably not even there.
And thus your arguments about what happens 'at war' are somewhat specious.
by Fred Fnord on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:37:17 PM PST
Supposedly we have been at war with terrorists since the attacks of 9/11/2001 (it was in all the papers). If we are to get the terrorists, unmanned drones make a lot more sense to me than even smart bombs or Navy Seals going in.
What's that? Arrest them and bring them to justice? That ought to take about the rest of our lives.
by Carlsson on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 02:55:46 PM PST
Except for the fact that the use of drones creates more terrorists that will take generations to deal with.
Nothing quite as bracing as the sound of a drone overhead on a quite night.
Now you funny too.
by SpecialKinFlag on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 04:32:13 PM PST
And so, conveniently, we are waging a war with no geographical boundaries and no defined end point. Endless, unlimited war, against The Terrorists.
I feel so protected now.
by gharlane on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 04:33:41 AM PST
Supposedly we have been at war with terrorists since the attacks of 9/11/2001 (it was in all the papers).
Just saying something is true doesn't make it true. Saying it even louder doesn't help.
If we are to get the terrorists, unmanned drones make a lot more sense to me than even smart bombs or Navy Seals going in.
And of course that's irrelevant too, since your drone strikes just make more terrorists, and so that will take the rest of our lives too. And longer. And make things worse than they would be if we were trying to capture and try them.
So we have a deeply immoral course of action which does not in fact do us any actual good. Yes! Let's do this!
by Fred Fnord on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 05:09:44 PM PST
that prosecuting this "war" will also wind up taking the rest of our lives.
Too late to rec your comment, but consider it rec'd by me :)
by gharlane on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 10:56:13 PM PST
other thread (what entities can actually be at war, the rights of neutrals, article 3 section 3, etc etc)... but we might start with this one to most closely address your question:
3. Any bombardment of cities, towns, villages, habitations and building which are not situated in the immediate vicinity of the operations of the land forces, is forbidden. Should the objectives specified in paragraph 2 be so situated that they could not be bombed but that an undiscriminating bombardment of the civil population would result therefrom, the aircraft must abstain from bombing;
by majyqman on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:33:58 PM PST
Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
by polecat on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:03:28 AM PST
I want 1 less Tiny Coffin, Why Don't You? Support The President's Gun Violence Plan.
by JML9999 on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:06:10 AM PST
and man, that still blows my mind.
by joanneleon on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:46:19 AM PST
when there are more recent models for that kind of thought.
by corvo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:14:39 AM PST
by Burned on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:20:44 AM PST
to voice the doctrine so succinctly.
"We refuse to fight in a war started by men who refused to fight in a war." -freewayblogger
by Bisbonian on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:27:57 AM PST
But Nixon is no longer president.
by corvo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:31:48 AM PST
the Monroe Doctrine....
by Bisbonian on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:48:09 AM PST
that way the intellectually lazy (I don't mean you) can't get away with blaming Monroe and thinking they're done with the matter.
by corvo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:02:29 AM PST
Why would Nixonian be different?
by majyqman on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:38:51 PM PST
it wasn't Nixon's face in that last frame. Let's just say the President in that last frame was.... or rather, is.... um, channeling Nixon very accurately.
by gharlane on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 04:37:00 AM PST
All in one convenient package...
I for one welcome our new Drone overlords
by JML9999 on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:04:33 AM PST
I can be very helpful in gathering slaves to work in the Drones' underground sugar mines.
"The problem with posting quotes off the Internet is you never know if they're genuine."--Gen. George Washington at the Battle of Gettysburg, February 30, 1908
by Aspe4 on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:10:06 AM PST
Sum ergo cogito.
by fisheye on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:33:45 AM PST
by JML9999 on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:50:38 AM PST
Prosecutor, judge, jury, executioner.
I mean, who needs any kind of adversarial process, right? This is so much more... efficient. And we know they are always going to be right, because Terror. Or something.
by gharlane on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 04:39:10 AM PST
to those against drones
would you be against air strikes? special forces? what is it about drones that is so special?
by duhban on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:06:09 AM PST
Against the trashing of due process. There's a difference. Really.
by Dave925 on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:20:04 AM PST
or special for drones?
by duhban on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:22:07 AM PST
for just how easily the Constitution is trashed.
by corvo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:27:02 AM PST
but you are welcome to explain
by duhban on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:28:01 AM PST
on the subject here and elsewhere.
You are either being lazy or disingenuous.
by stevej on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:39:23 AM PST
by corvo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:41:34 AM PST
I want to hear from more then just the front pagers or the popular posters
granted at the end of the day the positions might be the same but I like trying to learn what people think
that's all I will say on that
by duhban on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:42:29 AM PST
The constitution prevents the government from killing Americans anywhere in the world without due process. End of story.
by SethRightmer on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:14:10 AM PST
(or his trusted advisors) says it doesn't.
by Dave925 on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:04:06 AM PST
He said so! I remember!
by niemann on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:12:29 AM PST
The Constitution refers to "persons", not Americans.
by Carlsson on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:28:09 PM PST
EVERYONE is entitled to due process, even icky brown non-citizens.
by Dave925 on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:22:50 PM PST
by JesseCW on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:33:23 PM PST
People like you are just to ignorant to make part of the process. You're the reason the Constitution gets shredded. You're an enabler.
by nokoshere on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:32:14 AM PST
Fairly useful to know when calling someone ignorant.
Ron Reagan: "Sarah Palin's constituency are people who wear red rubber noses and bells on their shoes."
by AnnetteK on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 12:22:58 PM PST
I have aphasia due to a brain injury. I drop words randomly out of my speech. I do it frequently when I type, unless I proof read several minutes after I write.
I have found that the people who pretend that extreme adherence to conventions of grammar, spelling, or punctuation are signs of high or low intelligence are almost invariably profoundly stupid and authoritarian.
They can rarely construct coherent arguments, often know very little about the world, and generally suffer from the illusion that having pleased their middle school English teacher was a monumental intellectual achievement.
by JesseCW on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:40:33 PM PST
sorry you took that from my comment. I should be more thoughtful.
If you look at hiddens and other comments by this poster you will perhaps see why I was so snotty.
I make typo's and mistakes myself all the time, my only excuse is that I'm a bit of an idiot.
by AnnetteK on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:52:01 PM PST
by JesseCW on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 02:27:43 PM PST
I hate it if I upset anyone, sorry again.
by AnnetteK on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 02:37:55 PM PST
(and all too often uses too many or two few negatives) with increasing age: Thank you.
I do think that sloppy language often betrays sloppy thought, but this simply doesn't equate to the right to condemn for a typo.
by corvo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:57:49 PM PST
I was being rude to an obvious troll, JesseCW rightly kicked my arse.
Please accept my apology.
by AnnetteK on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 02:11:43 PM PST
but using drones just seems to make it so much easier.
by Bisbonian on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:29:04 AM PST
We care that the Chief Executive has decided he can kill Americans without any due process. Just b/c the President says X is a terrorist doesn't make it true.
Drones have a bunch of problems by themselves, of course. Over the next decade we'll see hundreds of local law enforcement offices use them to spy on Americans - mostly minorities - without judicial oversight.
by gunnarthor on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:31:21 AM PST
Over the next decade we'll see hundreds of local law enforcement offices use them to spy on Americans - mostly minorities - without judicial oversight.
We won't have to wait long for either, I imagine.
by corvo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:37:18 AM PST
over US airspace anytime soon, there's no way the people in general would tolerate it
by duhban on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:43:34 AM PST
if it weren't so untrue. Few complained when MOVE was obliterated from the air -- along with 65 nearby buildings.
by corvo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:47:42 AM PST
and that action was later found to be utterly wrong and the proof of that is that the police are not dropping explosives out of helicopters
by duhban on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:53:50 AM PST
by corvo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:03:34 AM PST
so there's that.
by Shahryar on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 12:20:09 PM PST
by corvo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 12:22:26 PM PST
wish it weren't so but I am so far removed from how I felt in mid-2008 when I thought it wasn't a fixed fight.
by Shahryar on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 12:27:09 PM PST
were the tactics; see Waco.
by corvo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:04:22 AM PST
Seriously, does it matter much what people will tolerate? I mean, anyone who refuses to tolerate armed drones can simply be declared an enemy combatant and killed without due process.
But I think they will tolerate it. If they tolerate a little infringement of basic rights now, in exchange for some illusion of safety, why, it's not that far of a leap to think that the powers that be can sell the idea of armed drones in American skies. After all, they only kill bad guys, right? Are you a bad guy? Then what are you worried about?
by SethRightmer on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:20:16 AM PST
due to global warming, there will be armed drones patrolling the skies of Indiana, keeping East Coast refugees away from the heartland.
by PhilJD on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:50:04 AM PST
that way? The coast of Paris is much better.
by Aunt Martha on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:01:26 AM PST
so we accept it. Maybe use weaponized drones to take out some far right gun totting crazy ass militia. Eventually, some law enforcement agency will come up with "all the lives that can be saved" BS if only they could have armed drones so that their officers don't have to enter a dangerous building.
by gunnarthor on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:35:57 AM PST
oh wait they are not
by duhban on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:39:55 AM PST
I've seen them carrying SWAT members. Seems weaponized to me.
by Dave925 on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:07:00 AM PST
weaponization would be giving the helicopters their own weapons
by duhban on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:22:04 AM PST
by Dave925 on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:00:27 AM PST
by duhban on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:06:00 AM PST
Even if it's a 50cal... that's weaponized, so you're wrong.
But it seems to be more than that.
by majyqman on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:01:38 PM PST
jet liner, not in a hurry but that never says anything about arming helicopters to do it
by duhban on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:39:47 PM PST
down a jet liner...
They intimate they have more, BUT...
That's not this argument.
This argument is are police helicopters currently weaponised.
They have mounted 50cals. Ergo They are weaponised. Ergo you were wrong.
by majyqman on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:50:23 PM PST
that seems to be more your assumption because the article has a picture of a helicopter
by duhban on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:54:04 PM PST
Neither Bloomberg nor Kelly would specify what weapons the NYPD has its disposal. Many believe New York's top cop was referring to the helicopter-mounted Barrett .50 caliber rifle, known since 2005 to be in the city's counter-terrorism arsenal.
by majyqman on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:05:06 PM PST
Been, Overcome. Sigh.
But yeah, I'll take my occasional typographical errors with meaning still able to be gleaned...
...to the inablity to exhibit even the meanest of reading comprehension skills and as such derail the conversation with a need to be corrected on a stark point of fact.
by majyqman on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:11:20 PM PST
you do understand what the word BELIEVE means right?
Good gods remove that splinter from your eye before you criticize others
by duhban on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:37:52 PM PST
Let me split it up for you.
Here's the part you chose to see
Neither Bloomberg nor Kelly would specify what weapons the NYPD has its disposal. Many believe New York's top cop was referring to the helicopter-mounted Barrett .50 caliber rifle,
the helicopter-mounted Barrett .50 caliber rifle, known since 2005 to be in the city's counter-terrorism arsenal.
The "many believe" part was their speculation on WHAT could shoot down aircraft... and ONE OPTION WAS:
the helicopter-mounted Barrett .50 caliber rifle,
known since 2005 to be in the city's counter-terrorism arsenal.
by majyqman on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:50:24 PM PST
Duhban is trolling. Clearly.
Thanks for spelling it out.
by gharlane on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 04:45:48 AM PST
arguing in good faith.
I highly doubt you'll see weaponized drones (1+ / 0-)
over US airspace anytime soon, there's no way the people in general would tolerate it
yeah that's why police copters are weaponized (0+ / 0-)
oh wait they are not
Please concede your argument was fundamentally flawed and those you were snidely dismissing had a point.
by majyqman on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 04:42:05 PM PST
I disagree that mounting a Riffle to a helicopter (if that's even what they did because that sounds really strange) is weaponizing a helicopter in the way I was talking about. Because I clearly was talking about missiles being mounted to drones and used on US territoriality.
Thus I offer no complete retraction though if and I repeat if the Barrett is actually mounted to the helicopter instead of being carried by a human I'll concede that you would technically have a point. However as that's still not weaponization as I was talking about it, I still 'snidely' dismiss the pure tin foil hat paranoia about drones.
I do willing admit I read your article wrong though see above about my reservations from a technical standpoint that it is actually mounted to the copter. That's the best you're going to get.
by duhban on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 06:35:01 PM PST
More likely the next Occupy group.
by corvo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:52:13 AM PST
by Dave925 on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:07:25 AM PST
so they can't all be subversive terrorists, right?
by corvo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:09:13 AM PST
Maj. General Nathaneal Greene of Revolutionary War Fame. he really didn't like the British.
by Dave925 on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:02:35 AM PST
by gunnarthor on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:16:18 AM PST
at an Occupy eviction. Rubber bullets, Surveillance, Pepper spray, LRAD sonic canons, riot gear, tanks, and much more!
The general population would never tolerate the militarization of its police force!!
President Obama would have been a republican in the 1980's & 1990's. Go figure.
by Tool on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:13:36 AM PST
but if you want to pretend it was, okay
by duhban on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 04:41:41 PM PST
The current drone strike program is covert, run through the CIA, and without proper due process. Which is quite different from legitimate military ops run through DoD and following rules of engagement. It's less about drones per se than what they're being used for and how. It could just as well be on the ground assassins or F-15s we're talking about here. The point is that it's being done outside the normal military process and the law.
Domestically, I think the objections are mainly on 4th amendment grounds.
"Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777
by kovie on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:21:21 AM PST
but if secrecy is the problem again how would that be different from say spec ops? Because as I understand it the public only hears about a small fraction of the missions that happen and even then it's normally the big ones.
(I am being serious here as while I am not sure I agree I want to understand)
by duhban on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:24:33 AM PST
through a lawful process, by the military. The drone program is not AFAIK.
by kovie on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:30:16 AM PST
and without sufficient oversight or checks/balances etcetcetc. Its not just "secrecy" thats the problem. Who and How is the decision made to kill an American citizen?
This is not a soundbyte-able issue, sorry.
If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution. ~ Emma Goldman
by Lady Libertine on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:33:50 AM PST
kill me, an American citizen, without due process either.
doesn't matter whether it's drones or spec ops on the ground, the point is there is no due process.
drones make it even worse due to much higher "collateral damage" or so we now call civilian deaths.
It's just a blog, not a moral superiority death match. ~paulitics
by poligirl on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:47:53 AM PST
instead I was asking if it would make a difference to that person.
by duhban on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:08:28 AM PST
We may as rail against heat seeking missiles... No! Laser guided bombs Cuz lasers are newer!
It's just technology. The real issue at hand is out of control executive power, and the execution of US citizens with no input from the judicial branch.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!
by bigtimecynic on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:22:02 AM PST
is governments assuming the right to kill people. That basic premise needs to be questioned first. It creates a vicious cycle of death.
If people can kill people when acting collectively, how is individual action different? Does it not follow logically that people can kill people too then? The powers of government are founded in the rights of individuals to act collectively, not in a superordinate legal realm bestowing special rights on the collective. Doesn't the very fact that the government kills people lead to the expectation that there will be people at war with the government to protect themselves and their families? Killing begets more killing. This is why we have rule of law!
by jqjacobs on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:07:14 AM PST
Not identifying their targets before attacking, etc...
Oh not a thing. Course the US has a nice legal precedent for our random bombing of civilians.
Just ask Japan.
I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.
by detroitmechworks on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:22:45 AM PST
piloting the drones just open fire? My understanding is the opposite.
by duhban on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:26:20 AM PST
Remember that Norden Bombsight?
That made certain that bombs always fell exactly where the operator directed, and no civilian was ever killed by the explosion.
Your equating of aiming with due process is quite disingenuous.
by detroitmechworks on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:29:39 AM PST
but the fact is that the US army airforce was in fact much more accurate then the british since you bring it up
and it's disingenous to pretend that civilian causalities are anything but way lower then they were then
by duhban on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:38:01 AM PST
Yeah, we got that argument. Just like there were no civilians in Dresden, Tokyo, or Kobe.
Everybody who is killed is an enemy combatant.
Unless proven otherwise.
by detroitmechworks on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:40:54 AM PST
thus there is no point in continuing this, good bye
by duhban on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:44:33 AM PST
What I mean is that you've lost the debate and are running away rather than admitting you've lost, or, heaven forbid, changing your mind. Try it some time. Say, "I thought one way and now I have been convinced to think differently." And then add your voice to the voices raised to protect our constitution. Trust me, it's a nice constitution, and worth defending.
by SethRightmer on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:25:28 AM PST
by duhban on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:41:40 AM PST
who would trade their freedom for the illusion of a little security.
by Tool on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:18:11 AM PST
if I have to choose from being self righteous and being an idiot I'd gladly take being an idiot
by duhban on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:24:59 AM PST
Modern revolutions have succeeded because of solidarity, not force.
by badger on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:04:42 PM PST
be called an idiot then self righteous as the self righteous have done more harm to this world then the idiotic ever have.
by duhban on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 04:32:28 PM PST
you're leaving again?
by JesseCW on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:45:30 PM PST
I've said good bye to specific people and then not responded further to them
So then are you playing the game where you dishonestly attack strawman because that makes you happy?
by duhban on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 04:33:28 PM PST
I'm not the one who is self righteously attempting to monopolize this thread with my point of view.
Seriously, save it up and spread it on the lawn come spring.
by SethRightmer on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:30:01 AM PST
but I can't let this smear go unanswered
yes I asked a question and surprisingly I even got almost a majority of interesting responses however I've not tried to monopolize. Where I've had a question I've asked, where I have objected I have objected
If you don't like that then go away because your attempts to bait me are going to be continued to be ignored after this.
by duhban on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:24:33 AM PST
You are not being baited, you are losing an argument. You came here to push your viewpoint, rather than engage in honest debate, but no one is buying what you are selling. I can tell that makes you quite angry, but making you angry is not my intention.
You have not been ignoring me, in fact you were the one who replied with the weak-sauce "gods save me from the self righteous."
Now that you have been soundly thrashed, rhetorically speaking, by a great number of upstanding and patriotic citizens, who, unlike you, value their constitution, you slink off. Next time, slink away more quietly, please. In fact, next time don't even start.
by SethRightmer on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:53:22 AM PST
and who decides that the people we kill with drones are terrorists or going to be terrorists? The AUFM and the other creepy legislation that has been passed since 9/11, like NDAA, FISA, the super new secret Patriot Act, Homeland Security, all these bogus laws are based on a 'war' against terror. The word is the battlefield and anyone can be declared a terrorist or to be aiding terrorism.
This is not the same thing as a war against a nation state with a army and a real battlefield. It's a endless war as it's never winnable as one of it's features is that there is always a new Goldstein or fresh enemies of the state to kill or use as endless boogie men. These people we kill, bomb, torture lock up in places like Bagram or whose countries we invade are declared terrorists if they resist or harbor terrorists. What kind of war is this? An endless war with an endless constantly changing enemy and that enemy is anyone anywhere who the Spooks put on their hit list.
WW2 comparisons do not work. You can drag up Dresden or Hiroshima both of which were horrendous, but this Orwellian GWOT isn't the same. It's illegal, immoral, cowardly and chilling. Claiming the people we kill are terrorists after the fact while targeting weddings and funerals and people's dwellings isn't war it's terrorism. It's not real war with a definable enemy. The enemy is anyone who resists our neocon preemptive geopolitical killing and wants us out of their land. It's also anyone anywhere who might become a terrorist, including US citizens. This bogus war has destroyed our inalienable rights here in der homeland and allowed crimes against humanity to be legalized.
Actually if your going to make WW2 comparisons I think that we are the 'rogue' nation here. We have decided to kill and eliminate large swaths of humans who resist our NWO, using the same classic excuse evil empire always do 'protecting the Homeland'.
by shaharazade on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:28:58 AM PST
commenter or blended our argumetns together
by duhban on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:51:07 AM PST
to be cut of the same cloth. You are both arguing under the assumption that the GWOT is legitimate and there fore drones are like air strikes and a tool that is okay to use on humans we decide are terrorists. I'm saying the whole concept and implementation of this so called war is bogus. The global war on terror itself is international terrorism and it does not protect Americans or anyone. What protects people are those inalienable human and civil rights and truths. The ones people have for centuries developed and used to protect themselves form the would be inhuman threatening assholes who always wrap themselves in nationalism, patriotism and fear and then proclaim they are protecting the Homeland. Meanwhile we here in the US have no protection as we too are all potential threats to der Homeland's security. Whose gonna protect us from these would be rule the world neocons and their greedy immoral sponsors who's mercenaries are our armed forces and the uber secret spook/gestapo/KGB security state ? Misplaced fear abounds.
Where's my habeas corpus?
by shaharazade on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:15:46 AM PST
by duhban on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:21:30 AM PST
in the war, actually trying to hit targets of military value.
The British were firebombing cities from the start. They flat-out called it terror bombing. Their objective was not to cripple the German military or even military production, but to murder so many of the daughters and grandmothers of German soldiers that they would cease to fight.
The British were not "less accurate". They had different aims.
by JesseCW on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:45:00 PM PST
High tech futuristic police state lethality with medieval implementation.
If cats could blog, they wouldn't
by crystal eyes on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:24:45 AM PST
but again what I don't understand how this 'precedent' is any different then the last 20 years of airstrikes....
by duhban on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:27:10 AM PST
less risky, therefore easier over all, and more likely to be used, more often, and in increasingly broad situations.
The LAPD just declared Dorner a "terrorist" so they can use them against him. How broadly could that be spread?
by Bisbonian on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:32:22 AM PST
becuase the man is a terrorist
but I see your point about drones vs airstrikes but is that objectively what is happening or just your opinion?
by duhban on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:39:07 AM PST
precisely because he's a terrorist.
According to you (and our President) if Dorner hides under a cabin next door to my friends cabin in Big Bear, then the US Government can fire a 500 lb warhead at that cabin in an effort to kill him.
My friend and her daughters will just be "collateral damage", and unless you're a bigot who holds the lives of American and Pakistani children to be of differing values...
you'll be ok with that.
by JesseCW on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:48:57 PM PST
are you just incapable of meeting the argument head on or are you one of those 'must win at any costs' type of people?
by duhban on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 04:31:24 PM PST
You just don't see JesseCW's point because you can't conceive of these drone chickens coming home to roost. Because you can't conceive of what you approve of being done by our leaders in other countries being done by our leaders here.
But Obama makes the argument that the President has the right to kill American citizens who he believes to be terrorists anywhere, and without judicial due process. So why not Dorner and with a drone?
by CT Hank on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:39:58 PM PST
I see and grasp Jesse' point, I just largely disagree with it
Jesse, you and the handful of others on the other hand have yet to demonstrate any recognition let alone mastery of my points presented. Instead you all come up with straw men such Jesse' above
I never said I would support such action and neither has our president but that doesn't stop self righteous zealots from throwing accusations around. And I have found in my experience that there is no reasoning with such people be they on the left or on the right. Thus I dismiss what said people have to say as about as useful as having two left hands
I think this 'discussion' between us is over. You can think you're misunderstood all you want, you can think yourselves superior all you want, hell you can think that you're all purple people eaters I really don't give a fig as you're not worth talking to because all you do is talk at people.
Maybe one day you'll figure that out
by duhban on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:08:54 PM PST
Which I doubt you were.
In either case you were given your explanation.
Whether you were innocent in your motivations, or mendacious as it appears... the matter is at rest. If you were innocent you can now appreciate the true gravity of the situation... otherwise kindly slink away.
by majyqman on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:15:42 PM PST
but if you're going to continue to smear me then just go away
2 passive aggressive comments from the same person is 2 comments too many
by duhban on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:44:20 PM PST
I don't believe you given the rest of your comments, but let's go with that with the understanding that the original attribution of position to you was likely under the same impression from the totality of your postings as well as the likelihood of "don't understand" having been a rhetorical device and just say...
...well now you know better, and (sans the perhaps deserved, perhaps otherwise unintended insult) doesn't that feel good?
Now you KNOW what "close to home" abhorrence might stem from the issues you didn't previously understand the problems with...
Because the 178 brown kids weren't enough... there had to be the possibility of JesseCW's friend being taken out by a 500lb intended for Dorner.
by majyqman on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:57:48 PM PST
Yes, I'm against striking countries and people we are not legally at war with with bombing runs and special forces also. Do you favor allowing other countries to launch murderous attacks into the United States for political reasons?
What is so special about drones is that they make it so much easier for a political leader to violate sovereignty and to wage surreptitious war.
Again, I ask those who would defend President Obama's use of drones: Can any country do this? Would you defend Iran doing this to countries and persons they perceive as being "imminent threats" to their country or interests?
Is it OK because the United States or Barack Obama does it?
All this killing people in other countries makes us less rather than more safe. It's immoral and wrong and decreases rather than increases our security.
And no President should have the right to decree and carry out a threat of capital punishment outside due process of law.
by CT Hank on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:25:43 AM PST
political leader to violate sovereignty and to wage surreptitious war", and, as you point out, that goes for our enemies, as well.
by Bisbonian on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:34:11 AM PST
the use of drones and it was directed at me I'll take up that question
The fact is that the use of drones isn't random and it's not done lightly. While we may not technically be at war with the other fact is that these nations willingly and knowingly harbor and support terrorists groups. As such it's at least my opinion that those nations don't have the grounds to complain. I rather wish the US was not the only nation doing this but realistically the US is the only nation capable and willing to do it.
The morality of this may in the end be questionable but I don't see a better option as these terrorists are entirely too dangerous and will not stop. As I see it this is a war and the president and military have the obligation to carry it out as best they can.
by duhban on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:36:22 AM PST
While we may not technically be at war with the other fact is that these nations willingly and knowingly harbor and support terrorists groups.
Since we won't allow his extradition, I take it you'd be fine with other countries sending drones into the US and taking him out? I'm sure the collateral damage wouldn't be at all significant in the grand scheme of things.
Or is this one of those things that is only okay when the US does it? I can't remember what we call those...
by Fred Fnord on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:48:13 PM PST
process is entirely opaque.
by JesseCW on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:49:50 PM PST
You do understand that millions of people in the world view U.S. politicians in that regard, don't you?
I'm asking you to take a moment and consider this issue not as a scared American. Consider what the violent behavior of our country and its lawlessness looks like to others in the world. Consider, for example, Iraq. Consider the tens of thousands (conservatively estimated) dead Iraqi civilians, victims of an illegal war based on lies. Consider the torture of hundreds by U.S. soldiers and agents. In terms of scale, how does that violence and destruction and mayhem compare to that wrought by the Al Qaeda fanatics?
The U.S. harbors the war criminals George Bush, Dick Cheney, John Yoo, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice and many more. Do you advance a principle that other countries have the right to attack us with drones to try and "take out" those war criminals and murderers and torturers? Or, again, are you saying that it's okay for the United States to flaunt international law (and, when it comes to American citizens, the Bill of Rights) but not okay for others in the world?
That is completely unworkable. That is planting a bomb in the world of international law, a bomb that will blow up in our own faces.
by CT Hank on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:25:18 PM PST
Air strikes have a human in the cockpit.
As nasty as any of those scenarios are, it is humans risking their own lives to take another. Drones are just the next step to Chicken Hawk/ Chicken Shit Nation.
economics is politics masquerading as science - H. Henderson
by geez53 on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:35:46 AM PST
Would you be pro drone if Bush were still in power?
by stevej on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:36:28 AM PST
as I had absolutely no trust in Bush even before he was elected I'd have had huge reservations but do you really think Bush wouldn't have used drones if he had them?
Because the first drone strikes did take place under him and technology will keep progressing with drones and in general
by duhban on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:41:05 AM PST
cool. so the next time we have a GOP POTUS - who will be equally able to utilize these powers that are now being codified by this Dem one - we can count on you to yell your head off about it?
by Lady Libertine on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:46:18 AM PST
where it holds more and more discrency power. Perhaps Congress should take back it's power but with as broken as it is I am not sure how that would be much better
it's not as simple as you want to make it
by duhban on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:48:55 AM PST
tried to pretend that was complex too.
by JesseCW on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:50:48 PM PST
by duhban on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 04:28:29 PM PST
and strawman, SERIOUSLY?
He didn't say YOU pretended torture was "complex".
He said PEOPLE did... just like YOU said this issue was "not simple"...
True, it was to deride your position as equally ridiculous as that of those people on torture... but through analogy, not strawman.
You're long past being a faithful participant in this discussion.
by majyqman on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:21:31 PM PST
it was a reply to me and they made no attempt to clarify thus it's perfectly logical to conclude that 'people' includes me
And what you are doing is as I said, passive aggressive semantics
by duhban on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:42:48 PM PST
when someone is egregiously wrong in their dismissal or anothers argument.
And the analogy wasn't vague at all.
Or what, pray tell, should have been done with your accusation of "nice" strawman ("nicely" setting the tone there, mind you)? Should it not have been called out as wrong? Or was it the manner in which it was called out?
So was I wrong to call you wrong? Or did the manner in which I did it hurt your feefees?
by majyqman on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:02:36 PM PST
it would be 'nice' for you to actually engage what I said instead of some false construct that makes you feel better
But I certainly will not be holding my breath on that
And you? A random nobody on the internet hurt my feelings? Most hilarious thing I've heard all day. Don't you worry your pretty little head about that. I'm just disappointed by the demonstration of closed minded dogmatism being displayed in what should be a mature 'forum'. The only thing 'hurt' were my expectations but no worries those are easily adjusted.
by duhban on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:45:41 PM PST
strawman instead of an analogy.
by majyqman on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:53:30 PM PST
(and worse, and in both parties) waiting in the wings.
by corvo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:43:05 AM PST
What is about drones that are so special?
If he were using poison spitballs to violate international law, do away with due process, kill children and other civilians, piss off half the world, and create terrorists, then we'd be writing about poison spitballs.
by david mizner on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:42:40 AM PST
about violating international law and yet people never say which law(s) he's supposed to be violating
by duhban on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:45:57 AM PST
comment, I touch on some of the legal problems.
It's hard to say with certainty that the U.S. is violating IL, because so much of the info -- their targeting criteria, what efforts the admin is making to distinguish combatants from civilians, etc -- is secret. We know that the for purposes of counting the dead, it regards all military age males in a strike zone as combatants. If that were also its targeting criteria, it would be a war crime. And the extent of the lawbreaking also depends on whether the rules of war, or human rights law, applies to the killing the U.S. is doing in Yemen, Somalia, etc.
by david mizner on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:08:48 AM PST
of why they count as they do the logic though is sound largely.
I'm sure that it leaves something to be desired but short of going there no method would be perfect
by duhban on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:20:45 AM PST
Now you have doubts?
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:16:51 AM PST
my comment, which features words and phrases like "probably" and "hard to say for sure" and "legal problems."
The only thing I was certain about is that you ducked most of the important IL questions.
Incidentally,some IL experts, like Mary Ellen O'Connell, don't see the need to use words like "probably."
I wrote about that first drone attack in 2004, saying it was unlawful. Even more importantly, the UN Special Rapporteur for Extrajudicial Killing, Asma Jahangir, from Pakistan, a very well-respected human rights lawyer, did an investigation of that 2002 Yemen attack, and said it was extra-judicial killing.
by david mizner on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:55:42 AM PST
But look to sources that may challenge your world view as well.
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 12:42:42 PM PST
from ethical constraint to construct excuses for their abuses too.
That you've decided to posse up with Dershowitz in order to avoid responsibility for your choice to dedicate yourself to making sure this President is free continue a campaign of murder and terror does not mean that people of conscience or goodwill will be persuaded by such arguments.
What were once Right Wing talking points that would have seen you banned from this site for repetition are now becoming accepted as part of the mainstream.
That's Obama's one lasting achievement - making the morally bankrupt arguments and debauched distortions of law acceptable to a surprising number of modern Democrats.
by JesseCW on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:56:43 PM PST
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 02:10:37 PM PST
to begin with. How could it possible have sparked reasoned debate?
When the UN rules against your bizarre and unreasonable twisting of the laws of armed conflict (only to have any resolutions vetoed the Administration you're carrying water for) we both know that your "views" won't change.
They aren't based on even a cursory understanding of or basic regard for international law.
by JesseCW on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 02:26:34 PM PST
as opposed to insults.
So your argument, as I now understand it, is "international law" is what is being violated, not the Constitution.
Explain your cursory understanding of the international law provisions you believe are being violated.
I'll make it easy for you, link to your best surrogate on the subject.
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 02:31:04 PM PST
on some of the IL issues in two posts by Kevin Jon Heller at Opinio Juris.
by SunsetMagnolia on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 06:14:39 PM PST
I see that claim all the time (0+ / 0-)
about violating international law and yet people never say which law(s) he's supposed to be violating
Just with the use of (esp. CIA) drone strikes alone:
-"Any bombardment of cities, towns, villages, habitations and building which are not situated in the immediate vicinity of the operations of the land forces, is forbidden. Should the objectives specified in paragraph 2 be so situated that they could not be bombed but that an undiscriminating bombardment of the civil population would result therefrom, the aircraft must abstain from bombing;"... (so no bombing wedding parties...)
-"A military aircraft must be under the command of a person duly commissioned or matriculated military rolls of the State"... (so no civilian CIA control of drones...)
-"Belligerent military aircraft are forbidden to penetrate into the jurisdiction of a neutral State."... (so even if, as was contended in the other thread, you can perversely declare a person or group inside a neutral state an enemy combatant and then enter their territory to take measures when that state wont (not even counting the neutral state is free to allow a belligerent officer free to roam on their parole not to leave without permission)... you can NOT do so with an aircraft...)
Of course this doesn't touch on all the problems re: U.S. law. But should be enough to answer your "concern".
by majyqman on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:28:33 PM PST
by PhilJD on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:11:11 AM PST
by corvo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:20:22 AM PST
that on the whole I agree with you, the thing that truly scares me the most about drones and even robots in war is it makes war seem something trivial
by duhban on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:19:50 AM PST
or a light show on the teevee, waged for the entertainment of the lazy and privileged, and for the profit of . . . well, need I continue?
by corvo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:23:00 AM PST
by duhban on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:32:35 AM PST
That's all, but it's a pretty big all.
You could send in a couple of stealth helicopters stuffed full of SEALs. That's probably the gold standard for guaranteed effectiveness, but it's not cheap, easy, or safe, as seen by the near disastrous loss of one helicopter on the Abottabad raid.
You could send in an F-16 with precision-guided bombs. That's pretty similar to a drone strike, but F-16s cost a fortune to operate per hour, you're still risking a pilot, and you have to have base fairly close (or refuel aerially) because the combat radious of an F-16 is only about 350 miles. If you took away the drones, the attacks they do would either not be done, or done by some kind of muti-role fighter like an F-16, F-15E, or maybe someday an F-35 if the program doesn't collapse under the weight of corruption and inefficiency.
If you take away the pilot, the need to protect him and allow him to defend himself, you end up with something like the MQ-9 Reaper, with a combat radius of over 1100 miles. Better yet, it can stay in the air for fourteen hours, so you can fly it to where you think you might want it and have it loiter while a committee reviews the footage. And if it's shot down you're only out 37 million bucks, which is chump change in modern US military spending terms.
These all seem like relatively trivial advantages when you're talking about killing an unindicted citizen, or conducting a campaign of terror from the sky in residential villages. And they are. But what they do is remove practical objections to individual attacks, and if you add up each individual attack you have what amounts to a major campaign.
I've lost my faith in nihilism
by grumpynerd on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:58:57 AM PST
Though I do think a healthy discussion needs to be had about how drones make warmaking so much easier and cost-free than before, but that's another topic.
The point is, if apache helicopters were performing these targeted killings of US citizens instead of drones, the concerns being raised about the program are still there. That is, there is an application of secret interpretations of the law, and that there is no oversight of the program and no way to seek remedy if a mistake is made. What if someone is erroneously determined to be a terrorist and then killed? What oversight is there for this "high level official"? How can the families of incorrectly-killed targets seek restitution? Not to mention the whole debate about what "imminence" means.
The point is, this debate is bigger than the mode in which the program is being carried out.
by mrbond on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:17:38 AM PST
to avoid all the inconveniences of the War Powers Act.
Play chess for the Kossacks on Chess.com. Join the site, then the group at http://www.chess.com/groups/view/kossacks.
by rhutcheson on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:44:01 AM PST
the way they're being decided.
Drones just also happen to have a few extra problems:
by majyqman on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:55:49 PM PST
with a drone attack
they oughtn't be considered people
"a lie that can no longer be challenged becomes a form of madness" -Debord
by grollen on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:08:23 AM PST
by JML9999 on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:09:30 AM PST
Because "anyone owning even as little as one share may legitimately be viewed as lending support to the aims of the organization," etc. etc.
And thus as legitimate a target as Afghani children as discussed in Military Times . . . eh?
The Dutch kids' chorus Kinderen voor Kinderen wishes all the world's children freedom from hunger, ignorance, and war.
by lotlizard on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 03:49:18 PM PST
by kovie on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:16:15 AM PST
I hated Nixon with a white hot passion just for statements like that.
But then Obama is so much more personable donchaknow, so less, err, weasel-like, so I guess it's ok then.
by Dave925 on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:21:47 AM PST
Why do you hate him so much? Would you have preferred Hitler Romney?
by kovie on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:27:44 AM PST
in a little less than four years, and a Romney type will be, eventually. What then...the precedent is set?
by Bisbonian on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:35:45 AM PST
by corvo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:43:27 AM PST
usually I can keep track.
by Bisbonian on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:49:45 AM PST
someone unimaginably bad.
The Republican party is now a proto-fascist mob, and somewhere in this nation of some three hundred million there is a demagogue with the right combination of megalomania, charisma, and political skill to seize control of that mob and ride it to the White House.
You think Bush was bad? You think Obama's been bad? You ain't seen nothin' yet, brother.
"In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine
by limpidglass on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:54:29 AM PST
by Bisbonian on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:50:07 AM PST
by lotlizard on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 03:51:58 PM PST
It was pretty hard to top Cheney.
Repubs are going to have to move to comic villains soon.
by joanneleon on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:01:25 AM PST
Pretty soon the Repubs are going to have to put Dr. Evil up for the presidential race in order to keep up this less evil thang.
Okay, Chris Christie, and then Dr. Evil next time around.
by joanneleon on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:59:49 AM PST
And although I don't relish a president Christie, the ones I'm really worrried about aren't entirely out of the question under certain conditions.
President Pence? Bachman? Gingrich?
by kovie on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:09:58 AM PST
are diaries with several terabytes' worth of heartwarming photos of the Obama Family.
Sometimes I wonder if that's the only thing this site was ever good for.
by corvo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:23:14 AM PST
by Bisbonian on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:36:51 AM PST
by corvo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:40:37 AM PST
by joanneleon on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:02:50 AM PST
Happy Hour somewhere, too, at the same time.
Collaboration is contagious!
by m16eib on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:16:16 AM PST
Many hands make light work, but light hearts make heavy work the lightest of all.
by SpamNunn on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:41:13 AM PST
by m16eib on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:12:49 AM PST
by m16eib on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:14:04 AM PST
As long as the king is in your political party, it's all ok. We don't need laws to protect us as long as we know the king is too nice a guy to ever decide to kill us.
by bigtimecynic on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:26:18 AM PST
for maintaining political dynasties.
by corvo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:29:31 AM PST
Or, how's this for an idea. Elect any one of the millions of other qualified people. I like to think that my distaste for royalty make me very American.
by bigtimecynic on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:32:17 AM PST
had added something to the Constitution forbidding the close relatives of anyone holding an elected federal position from holding such positions themselves.
Massively unfair? Big fat hairy.
And of course, more than a few of our founding fathers were interested in creating dynasties of their own. One of them abrogated most of the first amendment during his presidency.
by corvo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:39:34 AM PST
I respect the human rights advocates complaining about how insane this whole policy.
But as an American who was heavily influenced by 9/11 as a kid, in general I'm okay with Obama's actions, at least until they backfire (more so than the deaths of the Americans in Yemen) and the consequences of the program are more clearly demonstrated. So far, it seems to be a program that just kills a bunch of assholes who would only wish us ill and take action against us anyway.
Great comic nonetheless. Made me stop and think twice about my feelings on this issue for sure.
Deficits don't matter, jobs do.
by aguadito on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:19:46 AM PST
the only American. There are at least 3 dead american citizens by drone (one of them was 16 years old). They may or may not have been "assholes", as they were not even indicted for any crime or treason.
by hassanm on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:26:28 AM PST
You can't break it, ever, period, no matter how much you think you have to. Thing is, there's no good reason that the law has to be violated to do this. This could easily be done through a lawful process, with judges and review boards, and in cases where time is short, you can do an after-the-fact review. None of that is happening outside the executive branch, which is not lawful.
The "we need to do this or we'll die" argument is old, tired and easily refuted. Don't let yourself be duped by people pushing it, who are lying. They don't want accountability not because it's inefficient or bad for national security, but because they want the unchecked power, and don't want to be liable for mistakes, of which there have been many here. Blind trust is dangerous.
by kovie on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:26:38 AM PST
applies in time of war.
by bigtimecynic on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:28:38 AM PST
Didn't you know it's just a damn piece of paper.
by kovie on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:31:14 AM PST
it's also a "living document." we can interpret it however we want!
by sij on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:41:10 AM PST
But that doesn't mean we can interpret it however we want.
by kovie on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:16:36 AM PST
by corvo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:23:33 AM PST
Who did you think I was, that other guy? We're often confused for each other.
by kovie on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:44:57 AM PST
when you're Antonin Scalia, or at least John Roberts. :-)
by corvo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:56:48 AM PST
by kovie on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 12:29:05 PM PST
in peacetime. As if we'll ever experience that again.
by corvo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:34:35 AM PST
I'm just more at peace with the program continuing.
In a way I also trust Obama's judgment on the whole thing.
Like I said, the second there comes some serious consequences (a few dead Americans in Yemen isn't big enough for me) that show that this program is seriously flawed and producing some horribly unjust results that are hurting the US, I'll change sides.
I do think we should try and bring some judicial oversight regardless though. The lack of transparency really does make me nervous. But canceling the program entirely probably isn't the best idea. But I'll support any oversight that doesn't hinder the effectiveness of the program.
by aguadito on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:31:40 AM PST
I'll change sides." It will be just a wee bit too late, then.
by Bisbonian on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:38:46 AM PST
serious consequences, which "a few dead Americans (or non-Americans for that matter) in Yemen" is. I really don't get this "So long as I'm safe to play my Xbox I don't care if the law is being broken and some innocent people I never met get killed", to be followed by the inevitable "This is how the real world works, deal with it" mentality. It's borderline sociopathic.
by kovie on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:10:15 AM PST
Predestination, manifest destiny, libertarianism . . .
by corvo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:21:29 AM PST
and the review and approval part of it are separate aspects of it. Whether or not the operational part of it is effective, necessary and even lawful is distinct from whether the review and approval part of it is. Even if the former was true, the latter is not, making the entire program illegitimate.
You can't say "Yes, I agree this might be illegal, but it's keeping us safe so I say let's keep it". It doesn't work that way. What's the point of having a legal system if powerful people can ignore it under the claim of necessity? Even if they're telling the truth about its necessity--and why should we believe them since everything about it is classified--how does this justify it?
I think you're playing with fire with this approach.
by kovie on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:40:19 AM PST
is entirely justified...
there will be other Presidents.
by PhilJD on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:24:37 AM PST
In the Fox News Christian Nation, public schools won't teach sex education and evolution; instead they'll have an NRA sponsored Shots for Tots: Gunz in Schoolz program.
by xynz on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:01:12 AM PST
so he's young - too young to have had time to see what those guys in gov't that we start out trusting can do...
give him a few years...
by poligirl on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:03:47 AM PST
conveniently forget how our awesome past progressive presidents fared on civil liberties.
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the civil war.
FDR put an entire race of Americans in concentration camps just because they were Japanese (of course we didn't need to do that with Germans, because they're white!). But we love FDR, so lets give him a pass!
FDR also killed a lot of innocent civilians during WWII, but those weren't from drones so they were acceptable "collateral damage" and deserved to die apparently.
Truman dropped atomic bombs on Japanese cities killing a lot of civilians.
JFK had the Bay of Pigs and the start of our involvement in Vietnam.
LBJ had the escalation of the war in Vietnam.
It's just extremely frustrating when people act like anyone who supports the president for anything is some kind of brainwashed cultist unable to think for themselves.
When President Obama starts putting Arab-Americans in concentration camps like Saintly FDR did, then we can talk about historical perspective.
When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.
by PhillyJeff on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:59:34 PM PST
because of what he did.
You'll never find Progressives condemning Trumans two epic acts of terrorism.
JFK is widely praised for being duped by the CIA into approving the Bay of Pigs, and Lord knows Democrats at large have never been split over Vietnam.
When you find some asshole trying to justify the camps while condemning Obama's terror strike campaign, please open up with both barrels. I mean, just let that bastard have it.
But no one here is fucking doing that, so put your sorry fucking talking point back its holster and go construct a relevant goddamned argument if you're able.
by JesseCW on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 02:07:54 PM PST
Guarding the empty spaces
You call ideas
by PhilJD on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 03:02:21 PM PST
the praises of past Democratic presidents with fawning uncritical paeans.
I was unabashed myself in my recent approbation of Truman's use of the bomb.
by PhilJD on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 03:10:42 PM PST
.....just like with President Johnson; because of the Voting Rights Act and the Great Society programs, none of us older Kossacks EVER talk about the Vietnam fiasco.
by xynz on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 06:16:02 AM PST
Younger people must be idiots who have no historical perspective.
A little frustrating given the rash of "Obama should be more like FDR" advice we got during the recession.
I actually disagree with a lot of our drone policy, but I have the historical perspective to realize that things like this have always happened and may continue to happen for a long time.
I also have the perspective to realize that FDR and Truman intentionally killed a lot of civilians, and did things a hell of a lot worse than Obama would even consider doing. I keep that in mind when people rail about how horrible President Obama is.
It's also profoundly irritating to me to see people more upset about the 3 Americans killed by drone strikes and the possibility of a handful more than the thousands of Pakistanis and Yemenis and Afghans killed by drone strikes.
by PhillyJeff on Thu Feb 14, 2013 at 11:26:12 PM PST
it seems to be a program that just kills a bunch of assholes
by david mizner on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:33:58 AM PST
who didn't make their bed or pick up their toys.
Terrorists in training pants. We are America; we would never blow up good kids.
by PhilJD on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:27:46 AM PST
says, we've got to kill their children before they kill ours.
In accordance with the law, of course.
by david mizner on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:04:16 AM PST
because we all know that assholes all need to be killed, right? Maybe someone will go asshole hunting today, and maybe deem you or me an asshole, who knows. They might redefine asshole a few times today too. If their definition of asshole fits at the time that they shoot the asshole, no problem, right?
You see the logical problem in this, I hope. There is no law against being an asshole.
There is a deep historical context to "a bunch of assholes who would only wish us ill and take action against us" that includes their acting against countries that kill people. Maybe if the USA gave up its long tradition of killing people, those who wish us ill would no longer exist as a problem. From the Native American perspective, who are the assholes in this world? The rest of the world knows about the history of American genocide, conquest, slavery, colonialism, imperialism, interventionism, and corporate power. Who are the assholes and who is trying to kill assholes is all a matter of perspective.
You don't remember Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, etc. do you?
by jqjacobs on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:28:30 AM PST
that 178 children have been killed as a result of this assassination program as of last count.
by JesseCW on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 02:01:37 PM PST
Warfare is obviously a different thing now.
I guess we have to suffer the fact that war is part of the human condition. It may not be the same warfare that we have seen over the centuries, but then again, it's never been the same warfare that anyone saw before. New advancements in technology frequently come from the perceived need to increase military capabilities.
When I consider the issues with drones in battle situations, I wonder about the type of warfare we are pursuing.
We have frequently heard commentary about the need to treat terrorism as a police action, and not as warfare.
One of the components of this has always been the ability to selectively take out targets while adding to our ability to reduce the number of civilian casualties.
Can we stop the march of technology in warfare?
by otto on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:25:53 AM PST
who were guilty of driving the same suv. These are the entities we want to give HellFire capable drones too?
Phuckit, let's just hand out thermonuclear devices to the tea party so the next iteration of "intelligent" life can start filling the niche we leave behind. /darksnark
by geez53 on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:27:39 AM PST
by bigtimecynic on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:30:36 AM PST
could have a similiar frame... (though I imagine if it was my job to know before unloading 45 rounds into one I'd damn sure know)
...butthen I saw the picture, knowing the officers had been told it was grey, and I'm like...
DDDDDDUUUUUUUUUUUUUGHHHHHHHHHHH (does the G in there make it mouth drooling gutteral enough?)
Seriously, every officer there who is not legally colourblind should be fired immediately. The colourblind ones should be placed in roles where this can never be a factor in the execution of their duties.
by majyqman on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:16:51 PM PST
very convincing case.
The best comic I've seen in a long time. One of the best ever.
by fisheye on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:32:53 AM PST
“In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.” Terry Pratchett
by 420 forever on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:33:40 AM PST
It would seem to me that the determining factor, as to US citizens, is the presence of the risk of imminent harm to other US citizens and the lack of any other legal alternative that would prevent that risk from occurring, i.e. when a SWAT team takes out a hostage taker.
Absent that, I see no difference between what was done to Al-Awlaki and arranging to secretly poison him at home, placing a bomb in his car or simply paying someone to walk up to him in a mosque and blow his brains out.
We wouldn't think to do that to any other "dangerous" US citizen, like a certain LA ex-cop that is now being feted as a misunderstood whistle blower. I wonder what people here would say if the LA police simply deemed him to be "dangerous" and targeted his Mom's dinner table in say, Encino, for a drone strike as he sat down for a secret Last Supper before turning himself in after hearing that he won't be harmed if he does, in fact, turn himself in.
by SpamNunn on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:39:49 AM PST
the Rubicon was crossed long ago and now we await the moment when they start declaring war on Americans and killing them on American soil.
Yesterday LAPD chief Beck was on the teevee proclaiming Dorner a "domestic terrorist." In other words, by unilateral decree of Chief Beck, Dorner no longer has any rights and the police can shoot him on sight. That is what the top cop in LA said yesterday, and his word is now law.
And let's remember that we don't know if Dorner has killed anyone yet, he is merely accused and has not been tried. But that no longer matters: trial by jury is a thing of the past. He will be killed and we will be told by the police, the LA and state governments, and the media that he was indeed guilty--scout's honor!
Dorner will be one of the first Americans to be killed on American soil under the new regime. But he won't be the last. Others will follow. And they won't be ex-cops on a rampage--they may be protesters, or just people that some bigwig has found inconvenient, or just by random chance.
Get used to it, America. In the future, whenever some authority figure gets on the teevee and proclaims "X is a terrorist," X will be stripped of his/her rights, tried and sentenced in the media, and then killed outright, whether via drone or good old-fashioned bullet to the head. The body will be buried in an unmarked grave and that will be the end of it. Rights or due process will not enter into the discussion at any point.
That authority figure could be a local cop, a state governor, a US senator, or President Obama himself--anyone in power. Whenever it is convenient for the 1% to make someone disappear, that person will be sentenced to death and killed. This is the new dispensation.
You ask whether America has become an authoritarian police state. I say yes, those in charge are just being very coy about openly exercising their powers at the moment. But when rubber hits road and people start getting angrier and protesting more openly, then all bets will be off.
They will use the power because they are greedy and they have no intention of making even the slightest concession to the 99%, and they want to cling to power no matter what.
It's inevitable now.
by limpidglass on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:50:42 AM PST
where environmentalism is the next best thing to domestic terrorism . . .
by corvo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:08:07 AM PST
Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.
by Simplify on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:21:09 AM PST
into the Borg collective is now complete --- or didn't you recognize Professor Droney's facial features?
Proponents of gun violence own guns. Opponents of gun violence do not own guns. What part of this do you not understand?
by Liberal Panzer on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:58:31 AM PST
by corvo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:08:27 AM PST
Yesterday I had to laugh, watching a guest on Alex Witt (I think her name was Marjorie Clifton) do a mishmash of "imminent threats," calling them "eminent threats" and appearing to mean the latter, since she also spoke about an "eminent question" and pronounced it the same way. I have no idea what she was really thinking.
But it made me wonder whether the Obama administration is confusing "imminent threat" with "immanent threat" (= latent, yet to be realized).
If so, the new policy represents an immanent threat to our constitutional democracy. Minority Report territory.
Eminent, immanent, imminent. Ah whatz the diff?
by Eikyu Saha on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:02:41 AM PST
without due process. If we think you're guilty, you must be. That goes for the kindergarten class walking past you, too.
The Class, Terror and Climate Wars are indivisible and the short-term outcome will affect the planet for centuries. -WiA "When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill..." - PhilJD
by Words In Action on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:05:53 AM PST
care about those differences . . .
by corvo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:09:09 AM PST
become an exercise in futility?
If I'm reading things right, the first objection is to the drone program in general, with drone strikes on American targets (rare) being sort of the foot in the door on objecting to that program.
But the second objection seems to be to the manner in which this is done.
We have some genuine concerns here, but we also have some genuine problems. In this case, we have a guy who basically skipped the country and went to work for a declared enemy of our nation. A non-state actor to be sure, but an enemy nonetheless.
This will happen over time. Will we refuse to attack a terrorist leader on such grounds?
I don't think the angle of the political debate here is tremendously helpful. We need an approach that allows strikes at terrorist networks, but at the same time acknowledges due process, or sidesteps it with better legal reasoning that doesn't allow for arbitrary executive authority to kill American citizens.
Simple question: In the years since Republicans successfully urged the disempowering of workers and unions in the Midwest, what has happened to those states economies?
by Stephen Daugherty on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:08:12 AM PST
In this case, we have a guy who basically skipped the country and went to work for a declared enemy of our nation.
Still waiting for an argument even attempting to justify that one. What with all of the oversight provided by our positively Christlike leadership, that should have been easy.
by corvo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:12:28 AM PST
Awlaki's son was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He went to meet with some of his father's terrorist friends at the same time that they, not he, were targeted by a missile strike.
This is not a mystery. American and Yemeni officials were crowing about getting al-Banna, and several other AQ figures, in that strike before anyone knew Awlaki's son was even there.
You are right about one thing, though: that was easy.
Art is the handmaid of human good.
by joe from Lowell on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:43:21 AM PST
Just because some reporter writes that some unnamed government staffers told him XYZ, doesn't prove that XYZ is true.
Two U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity stated that the target of the October 14, 2011 airstrike was Ibrahim al-Banna, an Egyptian believed to be a senior operative in Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Another U.S. administration official described Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi as a bystander who was "in the wrong place at the wrong time", stating that "the U.S. government did not know that Mr. Awlaki’s son was there" before the airstrike was ordered.
by lotlizard on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 05:07:15 PM PST
strike should have been abstained from...
Because they weren't near the operations of land forces and couldn't discriminate the target from civilians.
That was easy.
by majyqman on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:30:47 PM PST
There, I said it. Doo-doo.
Which makes it entirely appropriate for our Congress to help decide. Just as they help (pronounced hey-yulp) decide when a president such as George W. Bush deems that we should initiate a war with, let's say, Iraq.
I don't want to completely trash the notion of due process, but I think an even more important angle is "accountability" in the sense of requiring a formal report to be filed to the Senate every time there is a strike, including a line of reasoning as to how the victims were determined to be a threat. More importantly, there should be a maximum two-year period between the filing of the report and the opening of the report to general public scrutiny.
No military power should be given carte blanche just to go out and kill people "cuz they're bad."
by Eikyu Saha on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:44:31 AM PST
and a citizen an odious one at that but so is Limbaugh. He is a American propagandist who stirs up terror. Drone him he is an enemy of the state. A fear monger who means us harm.
by shaharazade on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:54:23 AM PST
who were the two witnesses that testified to his same overt act?
And before you say "enemy combatant"... yes, if he's killed in the normal course of hostilities there's no fault. But choosing the target based on his presence (especially if nowhere near the operation of land forces)?
Well, that would just be an end run around 3/3... because then anyone who would otherwise be accused of treason could simply be declared an "enemy combatant" by the executive and summarily executed... and given the explicit purpose of 3/3 was as a check on the power of the executive, this can not be constitutional.
Show me the two witnesses.
Should be easy enough a requirement to meet for the "really bad guys".
by majyqman on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:39:07 PM PST
They could fly up your nose, poison or infect you and everyone around you, who presumably are co-conspirators.
by Words In Action on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:09:37 AM PST
one bit. Enemy combatants in foreign countries are potential targets, whether or not they are US citizens. Foreign countries that cannot or will not prevent themselves from becoming safe havens for foreign terrorists have abrogated their sovereign authority over their territory.
by Adolf Verloc on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:27:52 AM PST
drug-lord--whether because they've been massively paid off or because they're preoccupied with fighting back against elderly Hispanic women makes no difference--
you'll be entirely comfortable when the Mexican military initiates drone strikes on potential targets in Los Angeles?
by PhilJD on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:35:55 AM PST
Iraq was declared -- pretty-much unilaterally -- to be an enemy state. Therefore we could go out an killeroo anybody we damn pleased. Guy selling cigarettes on the corner? He's one of 'em! KaBoom.
by Eikyu Saha on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:50:03 AM PST
Same with Pakistan and Somalia.
Your statement about the law is true, but assumes a set of facts that don't apply here.
by joe from Lowell on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:50:42 AM PST
How do we know that these targets are truly "enemy combatants"? We can only take the administration's word. Also, the white paper shows that the definition of an "imminent" threat means that they can target a US citizen that is not actually in the process of doing, well, anything. They don't actually have to be in the process of doing anything threatening to the US. Are you so willing to trust that the government never makes a mistake and always exercises its power appropriately?
And the qualifying distinction is that the US citizen is in a foreign country? What if the target is in London? Can we send drones to kill that person? One objection to this power is that we are going into countries that we are not at war with (like Yemen) to carry out these targeted killings of people that are not actively engaging in hostile actions. So why can't we do it in Europe? Heck, why stop there and let's just start carrying out targeted killings of "enemy combatants" in Chicago or LA? It would be a lot easier than putting the police at risk with all that messy arresting business.
by mrbond on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:34:54 AM PST
… exceptional — now it's going to be the rule?
Some higher-up Chile's secret police apparatus was merely eliminating a pro-Allende "enemy combatant", right? Who cares that it was on American soil?
by lotlizard on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 04:11:18 PM PST
If you don't understand that war is a legal reality, and that the Constitution allows for it, please keep your legal opinions to yourself.
by joe from Lowell on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:35:29 AM PST
The Constitution also denied voting rights to most people, back in the day. Aren't we all glad people kept their opinions about THAT to themselves. (I choose the least inflammatory example).
by Eikyu Saha on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:53:24 AM PST
OK, so if we do that, who had legal authority to declare war?
by joe from Lowell on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:11:12 AM PST
Actually, it would be nice if Congress used it every now and then before we started wars.
by corvo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:53:48 AM PST
This is a good place to start if you want to discuss the legality of military operations against al Qaeda.
by joe from Lowell on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:02:56 AM PST
but I was anticipating as much.
by corvo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:08:33 AM PST
United Nations, and Red Cross all say that, even with your attitude, you're still wrong.
AUMFs have been recognized as creating a legal state of war ever since they were invented.
Recognized by all three branches of our government, and recognized by the international bodies who have jurisdiction over the laws of war.
Sorry you don't like that.
by joe from Lowell on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 02:13:52 PM PST
Is not the same as "war," not by a long shot. It was nothing but a "get out of jail free" card for W and his Dick, on the premise that "if you are the president, whatever you do will be legal." (Except for diddling interns, of course).
by Eikyu Saha on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:12:11 AM PST
W and his Dick
by gooderservice on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:33:09 AM PST
even though I agree with about 99.9% of what you're saying. Seems to me that the AUMF is a declaration of war, but one that's very specifically limited to 9/11, not against al Qaeda offshoots all over the world or terror in its inchoate form or groups we want to label al Qaeda or anything like that.
I'd be curious to hear what you see as the difference between "declaration of war" and "authorization to use military force"--beyond semantics, that is.
by Aunt Martha on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:54:44 AM PST
dispensation from having to abide by U.N. conventions on war (including torture and other issues pertaining to treatment of prisoners, etc.), that were ratified by the U.S. and supported after WW2, but which were declared to be "quaint" (the phraseology seems to have Rumsfeld's stamp on it, though Cheney was also pretty good at saccharine condescension).
So, maybe it's "war" in the very general sense ("this is war, baby!" which is what rowdy high schoolers say when teech sends them to detention) but not in the specific sense (abiding by U.N. codes of conduct).
The U.N. definitions of war were designed to limit abuse and hold people accountable. The Bush definitions were designed to remove all accountability. The difference is Nuremberg versus nada.
by Eikyu Saha on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:15:54 AM PST
But it seems to me that what Bush did with it, and what too much of the country countenanced and still countenances, is a different issue from whether or not the AUMF was a Congressional declaration of war.
I mean, Congress could have used the words "We declare war," and Bush et al. would have done the exact same thing that you describe.
by Aunt Martha on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:21:19 AM PST
He would have done the same. And he most likely would not have been held to account. But there's always that slim chance that some Democrat will take the law seriously.
The AUMF was a declaration of war against the world, declaring all that had gone before invalid. "We don't go by your rules."
by Eikyu Saha on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:31:45 AM PST
my question. And I don't mean this to be disingenuous at all. What specifically is it in the AUMF that leads you to say that it was not a declaration of war, even though you're now saying that it was a declaration of war against the whole world.
Yes, it's been abused by the Bush and Obama presidencies, and is still being abused, as far as I'm concerned. But if Congress is authorizing military force, I still don't see how that is different from Congress declaring war. Unless it's some other part of the AUMF that you're referring to?
by Aunt Martha on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:45:56 AM PST
"Declaration of War" used to mean more than just "we're gonna kill y'all." After WW2 it was supposed to mean "we hereby declare that we are a nation in search of justice; we reject the inhumanities that we have seen historically in war, and we reject the inhumanities that we witness in our declared enemy; we promise to conduct ourselves in a way that does not turn us into the enemy we seek to defeat; we will impose clear conditions on surrender and defeat; we will not abuse those whom we have defeated; etc."
I grew up in the shadow of WW2, Korea and Vietnam, and was reminded constantly (up until about 1977) that war dehumanizes and that the struggle of war is to prevent yourself from becoming dehumanized. "War" had a special meaning in that time. The Axis were condemned for a wide range of atrocities. Japan specifically was condemned for not having properly declared war. "War" was the noble way to fight the inhumanity. WW2 seemed justified because the Axis actually surrendered, and rather peaceably at that. So people thought "Hey, if we fight wars, the bad guys will surrender." Manifestly embarrassing ignorance.
The public put an end to the Vietnam War because they saw, when it came down to it, it didn't work. But nobody could figure out why.
Indeed it was optimistic to think there could be a "Just War." But Bush and His Dick never learned anything from WW2 or Korea or Vietnam. They held a la-la-land view, where you ride in with guns blazing and ride out on a parade of rose petals. But just to be sure, they covered their asses with AUMF shit that said "we are so SO so very good that everything we do will be good, so don't constrain us with quaint constraints that prevent us from doing such SUCH such good."
It was a very different thing from "war" as it had been defined after WW2. It was more like "atrocities galore," just as Vietnam had been ("kill everything that moves"). To call AUMF the same as "war" is an insult to the temporary wisdom gained in the wake of WW1, and WW2, and Korea, and Vietnam, and . . . oh, look at the pretty butterflies. . . .
by Eikyu Saha on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 12:48:59 PM PST
because on a philosophical, political, personal, cultural, etc. level, I agree with you completely. But the question is whether or not the AUMF is a constitutional declaration of war. It can be a shitty one, it can open the door to all sorts of shitty things, we can and should expect better of ourselves and try to hold accountable those people who did and do those shitty things, but I see that as a different issue or different collection of issues than whether or not the AUMF passes constitutional muster as a declaration of war.
by Aunt Martha on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:18:58 PM PST
then why was it not that? The wording was specifically designed to avoid calling it war. Why? It would be remarkable sleight of hand to declare "this isn't a declaration of war" then to turn around and declare that's what it was after all. What violates the Constitution is the abrogation of treaties. How egregiously the definition of "war" is twisted is almost beside the point. Then again, a constitution only exists insofar as people abide by it.
by Eikyu Saha on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 05:29:24 PM PST
I do think the AUMFs of 2001 and 2002 made it perfectly reasonable for other countries to interpret that the U.S. had declared war. By U.N. standards, the AUMFs basically declared the U.S. to be a rogue nation, since it officially abrogated a range of congressionally ratified agreements. Lucky for Bush that not even the U.N. takes itself very seriously any more.
by Eikyu Saha on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:42:48 AM PST
The UN has always recognized AUMFs as creating a legal state of war.
American entry into the UN-declared mission in Korea in the 1950s was based on an AUMF. Ditto the Gulf War.
I can't believe there are still people making this argument in 2013.
by joe from Lowell on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 02:15:31 PM PST
AUMF functionally declared "we are not bound by rules of war."
by Eikyu Saha on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 05:17:20 PM PST
to avoid his obvious confusion.
And yes, the authorization of "any and all" surely does what you say.
by majyqman on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 12:10:39 AM PST
I refer only to the AUMFs of 2001 and 2002, not the two previous ones.
by Eikyu Saha on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 04:11:14 PM PST
It didn't declare war on Iraq. And not on Afghanistan (because Bush did not want to be bound by "quaint" conventions). Not even on Vietnam (the Tonkin Resolution was claimed by Congress to be "not a declaration of war").
Your point is irrelevant. There is no "war" nowadays: only carnage.
We have no reliable body to determine when it's a good thing to officially kill other people. Only hearsay.
"Hey, man, I heard there's this guy in Yemen, sez he wants to blow stuff up."
"Well, we must then take him out. Can't worry about quaint stuff like collateral damage."
"But what if somebody finds out?"
"Who's to ever know? National security secrets are like diamonds, and diamonds are forever."
"I get it. It's just like -- James Bond."
by Eikyu Saha on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:07:50 AM PST
Not a legal article.
I took it as such, not a reasoned argument.
But reasoned argument on this issue is not likely possible in any case.
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:56:26 AM PST
Lying about what the argument is about actively contributes to the inability to have a reasoned argument.
This cartoon is like Fox; it makes people dumber. People who read this cartoon, and believe it, come away with a worse understanding than if they'd never seen it at all.
by joe from Lowell on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:04:52 AM PST
Folks here for the most part did not need this comic to form their opinions.
I've become resigned to it.
Lost my optimism on the reasoned debate thing on this.
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:07:39 AM PST
I think actively-misleading propaganda like this has played a big role in facilitating the Hindenberg of Stupid that makes up 99% of the arguments against the drones.
by joe from Lowell on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:10:02 AM PST
Bullshit in humorous form is still bullshit.
by gooderservice on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:33:56 AM PST
That is crap and you know it.
Many people attempted to have reasonable conversation with you yesterday and just like here you attempted to write them off as the unreasonable ones.
Just because others do not agree with your opinion does not make them wrong and being reasonable also includes your accepting others opinions even when you don't agree. Beyond popular belief you are not always right and there is a very long conversation to be had and it takes more than 145 characters.
There are no sacred cows.
by LaEscapee on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:07:43 AM PST
so therefore you are unreasonable.
by gooderservice on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:34:45 AM PST
-- does your response to LaEscapee mean that you agree with Armando?
by corvo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:42:07 AM PST
I was just trying out the old: "You won't agree with me, so you're being unreasonable" line.
I agree with LaEscapee.
by gooderservice on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:44:50 AM PST
if I call you a charlatan, a hypocrite, a Cheney lover and a John Yoo in the future, you'll agree that that is reasonable?
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:12:02 AM PST
by gooderservice on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:18:15 AM PST
I'm glad you think so.
And when you are insulted in similar fashion you describe it as reasonable.
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:19:59 AM PST
because it had nothing to do with what I said.
by gooderservice on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:06:01 PM PST
To wit, LaEscapee's denial that that occurred.
It was precisely what the exchange was about.
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:14:39 PM PST
they comparisons made regarding you had. Being "apt".
It's reasonable if the comparisons are apt.
And they were in spades.
Your drivel? Not so much.
by majyqman on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 12:14:53 AM PST
Be honest and repeat what you said.
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:11:05 AM PST
so we can all see it. :-)
by corvo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:52:50 AM PST
accusation of shilling for Obama Administration.
accusing of supporting "shoving people across the border" in order to kill them.
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 12:53:06 PM PST
I think you need to work on your reading comprehension skills. I think we'd all aready established that you aren't paid to do your stuff, so "shilling" is out of the question -- you're just laying out state and Party orthodoxy. And as for the third quote, there's no way it can even remotely be construed about you, unless of course you are the American security state.
If this is the depth and breadth of your reasoning skills, it's no wonder you've been so roundly and justly criticized for the content of your writings. To say nothing for your behavior. :-)
by corvo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:24:20 PM PST
Thank you for this. Really proves my point.
You'r e not accusing me of getting paid to parrot the Obama line, just that I am doing it. Not an accusation of paid dishonesty, just plain free dishonesty on my part.
I especially like the personal insult in the last paragraph.
The text of the fist comment linked:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Armando was once banned from this site for his behavior. I've always wondered about his reappearance, but his essay here pretty much demonstrates why: It lays out Executive Branch policy and Democratic Party orthodoxy.
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:30:41 PM PST
I think you actually believe your nonsense.
I'm not sure which is worse.
As for the block quote you reproduced: Which parts are wrong?
by corvo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:36:29 PM PST
I've always wondered about his reappearance, but his essay here pretty much demonstrates why: It lays out Executive Branch policy and Democratic Party orthodoxy.
And I know what's worse.
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:39:25 PM PST
that you affect to be offended by others' pointing out that you did precisely what you explicitly set out to do, i.e., legitimize the position of the Administration and the Party. :-)
by corvo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:47:58 PM PST
on the subject.
Yet again you accuse me of writing something for a purpose other than expressing my views.
This is precisely the lack or reasonable discourse on the subject that I described.
I note you do not deny that what I identify as false in your comment is in fact, false.
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:54:10 PM PST
support the Administration. On a site that exists to support the Democratic Party.
All this escaped you somehow?
Well, it is fun watching you grasp at straws. :-)
by corvo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 02:05:34 PM PST
Not all of my posts "support the Administration."
Fun to see you tell falsehoods.
I think we can see now that accuracy is not something you are interested in.
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 02:08:22 PM PST
Can the president order a child's testicles crushed? I think you should write a diary on that.
by Nada Lemming on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:25:11 PM PST
This is the reasonable discourse all right.
by Armando on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 05:42:53 AM PST
As a substial point speaks volumes. It is directly relevant. Your whole premise is that the aumf authorizes murder anywhere of anyone for any reason and without any check.
Yoo can't handle the truth.
by Nada Lemming on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 06:12:56 AM PST
"Your whole premise is that the aumf authorizes murder anywhere of anyone for any reason and without any check. "
Not my premise.
Not what anyone actually says.
Nice touch with the Yoo.
Loving the insults.
This has been good though.
Folks thought I was making it up.
The behavior in this thread proves everything I say is true about the behavior.
by Armando on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 06:59:36 AM PST
I haven't commented up to this point, but you write a long rationalization for the indefensible and try to justify it because "war is hell" and then you have the nerve to be insulted over a comparisons to Yoo or any other thing that got under your newly thin skin. Yeah, stuff like turning "if the President does it, it's not illegal" into the new normal pisses people off and they're not always polite in their push back, shocking, I know, but unreasonable?
Not in the least.
I shave my legs with Occam's razor~
by triv33 on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 11:28:06 AM PST
therefore you are a charlatan, like Cheney and Yoo and a hypocrite.
That was what I received and this pretense that I did not receive that abuse is ridiculous.
Disagreeing with me is perfectly reasonable.
Calling me a charlatan, a hypocrite, a terrorist and a John Yoo Cheney lover is not.
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:09:46 AM PST
I didn't call you a charlatan, a hypocrite, a terrorist or a John Yoo Cheney lover.
by gooderservice on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:10:09 PM PST
I did not say you did.
Other people, many, did.
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:11:51 PM PST
by gooderservice on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:30:01 PM PST
You decided to take it up with me in my exchange with LaEscapee.
I certainly did not seek you out on this point.
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:32:00 PM PST
because you agree with them.
When you advocate murder and strive to create an imagined confusion about whether or not it's legal, you're going to find that you'll be equated with others who have done the same thing.
That's not because poor Armando (really, where did this thin skin come from dude? You dish it out in shovel fulls for years and now you're playing sniffles delicate?) is being picked on.
It's because what you're doing is as wrong as what they did.
by JesseCW on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 03:08:16 PM PST
I was called Cheny, Yoo, a charlatan and a liar.
If there were a few attempts to engage they were few and far between.
Please do not act as if you did not see all of that.
The thread is there for anyone to review.
90% of the comments towards me were insulting and abusive towards me and NOT because they disagreed with me.
Please have the honesty to admit that.
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:07:57 AM PST
stuff, to be suprised by that.
This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus
by mallyroyal on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 12:01:44 PM PST
The lack of a reasonable discussion certainly was.
That is the point in dispute.
I say there was no attempt at it by people who disagreed with me.
Some pretend otherwise.
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:22:15 PM PST
the only thread I participated in and I would like you to point out where I called you anything but wrong. Yes it is there for all to see. I took umbrage at the fact you stated outright you would not discuss the fact that these are Bush policies on steroids.
by LaEscapee on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 12:04:31 PM PST
I think you concede my point then.
What about all the other threads?
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 12:53:57 PM PST
and am reasonably confident that I wasn't supporting anyone making those types of statements.
I am fairly certain that if you say those things happened then they did but again I only have responsibilty for myself. And I'm also fairly certain that everything I participated in was not along the lines to which you speak.
by LaEscapee on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:56:53 PM PST
I never accused you personally of anything.
But you said my statement was inaccurate.
It was not inaccurate.
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 02:09:30 PM PST
by Cassiodorus on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 12:41:11 PM PST
the reasonable discussion was overwhelmed by the unreasonable vitriol.
But we can try again in Part 2. Or not.
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 12:56:26 PM PST
Were the only two reasonable ones, and the dozens of others who disagreed were the unreasonable ones. I'm sure it seemed like a siege to you at the time. That's what advancing neocon propaganda tends to do on this site.
by Nada Lemming on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:23:43 PM PST
I actually do not remember if you were int the thread.
There were some reasonable people.
Most were not. Those same people still are not reasonable.
I'm not sure why actually addressing what I write is so difficult, but it appears so to some.
by Armando on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 05:44:36 AM PST
out for acting like Cheney and Yoo, that was not because people disagreed with you?
by JesseCW on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 03:11:20 PM PST
But I appreciate your recreation of your behavior yesterday.
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 03:50:49 PM PST
the insults which was NOT (their increasingly boggled that you were allowed anywhere near the front page...) disagreements (...with your dreck)?
I hadn't heard of you before yesterday, your argument fall down on at nearly every step, and thats when the insults or silence or demands people don't raise arguments that undermine yours that you didn't raise first begin.
You're claiming another motivation, I didn't have one before I read 2500 words of slimy dross. So, why insult you? I'm not insulting any other FP'er.
by majyqman on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 12:22:44 AM PST
I'm a little creeped out by your stalking.
by Armando on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 05:19:13 AM PST
Is to move on from each instance where they've been logically run to the ground and repeat the exact same dreck hoping a new neutral audience hasn't seen their previous humiliation and so they can now sow the seeds of an abhorrent and poisoned argument.
And I saw you do multiple times in the other diary and have gone on to repeat here. In fact worse, acting like you were the victim previously instead of perpetrating a disservice upon the community.
Put simply, I didn't "stalk" you, I came into the TT thread a little cheered after dealing with dreck... and yet here you were again, spewing the same bile.
You expect me to ignore it?
No, you can expect me not to, say, go into your profile and response to each comment or such. But you can not expect me to allow dross I stumble across to stand.
Incidentally, note you once again didn't counter glaring flaws exposed in a claim you made.
by majyqman on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 05:36:49 AM PST
and am not disappointed.
by Armando on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 05:46:22 AM PST
When 90% of your posts are no better this that, even to arguments which undermine your assertions from every possible direction, do you find it littel wonder so many have come to see you as a stain on the community which blemishes the FP?
by majyqman on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 06:05:42 AM PST
and live in a world free from your horrendous (in both quality and purpose) arguments...
But, breaking my cheer as I scroll through the comments of an amusing comic aside... every time I scan back through the FP... BAM!
Wish it weren't so. Sincerely wish it will never be repeated again.
by majyqman on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 05:45:00 AM PST
spew out the same shit diaries on the same topic.
You're going to be called on the same shit by the same people if you keep doing that.
If you find anyone following you into diaries about pooties or giving up smoking or arranging daffodils to harangue you about your advocacy for illegal assassination programs, you've got ever right to complain about stalking.
But if you're just going to go from diary about illegal assassination to diary about illegal assassination misrepresenting the motivations and actions of those who have condemned your profoundly evil and right wing efforts to grant the President (any President) the unilateral authority to murder anyone on Earth during war time you're going to keep encountering pushback.
by JesseCW on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 08:56:15 AM PST
one of your recommenders here was one of the main culprits.
Please try and be honest about this.
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:10:32 AM PST
and I have no control over who tips me or the words they have typed.
by LaEscapee on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 12:06:47 PM PST
your recommenders here.
You provide on thread.
There were over a thousand comments.
Are you saying I was not called a shilll, a charlatan, an Obama apologist, a hypocrite and a terrorist?
Or that you do not care about that? Or better yet, that you find that conducive to reasonable discourse?
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 12:55:31 PM PST
confronting advocates of murder, torture, terror, or rape.
I mean, it's an option, but it's not an obligation.
by JesseCW on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 02:14:38 PM PST
As I said before, being called an "Advocate of murder, torture, terror or rape" is not my idea of reasonable discourse.
Apparently, some think it is.
I will say this, if I was my old incarnation, I would have beat you to a pulp in terms of being an asshole.
I don't do that anymore.
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 02:20:14 PM PST
victim you distort.
I have never accused you advocating all three.
So far, I've only seen you advocate one. Murder.
by JesseCW on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 03:15:54 PM PST
those who have destroyed your arguments repeatedly "aren't being reasonable" isn't really an argument, right?
You're spitting teeth from a haymaker, and insisting the punch was below the belt.
Either your head was somewhere it shouldn't have been, or you're just wrong about the legitimacy of the pummeling you're taking.
by JesseCW on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 02:12:28 PM PST
is not addressing an argument, much less destroying it.
IF the debate was about who could be the nastier person, you won for sure.
On the substance, you never uttered a word.
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 02:18:13 PM PST
because one man has been convinced they're really very very bad people is orders of magnitude nastier than anything I have ever done in my life.
I know this is frustrating for you. You have no chance at all to sell people on this perverse advocacy of brutal murder unless they accept from the jump that your goals are reasonable.
They are not reasonable, and should not be treated as if they were.
by JesseCW on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 03:18:13 PM PST
No interest in reasonable discussion.
I'll avoid the insults.
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 03:49:36 PM PST
I saw were coming from you.
Everyone else insulted you in the course of deconstructing arguments that the making of makes you worthy of being insulted.
You insulted instead of dealing with your arguments being taken out to the woodshed.
by majyqman on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 12:25:43 AM PST
inner cities, as part of the "war" on poverty?
Calling our aggression a "war on terror" doesn't make it a war...
except in a paranoid neocon fantasy of the whole planet as a single battleground.
by PhilJD on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:58:42 AM PST
Would you have asked wither someone who supported the Normandy landings would support a combined arms assault on Detroit?
Calling our "aggression" against al Qaeda - loz - a war doesn't make it a war; you're right about that.
On the other hand, Congressusing its Constitutional war-declaring authority against al Qaeda does make it a war. That's their call, not yours.
If you're going to make a legal argument, you can't ignore the AUMF. It has the force of law.
by joe from Lowell on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:07:57 AM PST
The American Indian: Fighting Foreign Terrorism Since 1492.
by penguins4peace on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:11:49 AM PST
has the authority to declare war. It has done so. Its authority to do so is inarguable. Congress has declared war on al Qaeda.
The question is whether the President acting under the authority granted to him by Congress has the authority to order a strike against someone fighting for the enemy against whom Congress has declared war.
As for whether Congress's declaration of war against al Qaeda violates the Constitution, there are no limitations placed upon that war-declaring power. Congress authorized acts of war against American citizens in the 1860s, and the President and his inferior officers carried them out. Americans joined the Wehrmacht in the 1940s, and were shot at as the enemy just like their German-born comrades.
by joe from Lowell on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:18:41 AM PST
against al Qaeda. The relevant text of the AUMF is as follows:
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
So the burden of proof should be on the executive to demonstrate that link. Instead, the name "al Qaeda" gets thrown around as if that makes it self-evident. And it is not.
by Aunt Martha on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:46:23 AM PST
Regarding which our country has collective amnesia.
by penguins4peace on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:22:13 AM PST
Al Qaida was the "organization that planned and committed the terrorist attacks of 9/11."
The 2001 AUMF is a terrible document.
But willful misreading of it will not make it less terrible.
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:22:40 AM PST
Where in the AUMF does it use the words "al Qaeda?" It doesn't. Instead, it specifically references 9/11. Period.
Did what was then al Qaeda attack us on 9/11? Yes. But now that there are multiple al Qaeda offshoots around the globe, just because they take the name or we give them that name does not mean that they are affiliated with or part of the al Qaeda organization that "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons."
If the executive has proof of that connection, great. Let's see it.
by Aunt Martha on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:34:14 AM PST
not plot and carry out the 9/11 attacks?
IF so, you have BREAKING NEWS!
So you are saying these "offshoots" are not affiliated with Al Qaida?
This is a novel argument to me.
I think there are sound arguments against the drone polcies' legality.
In the end, I do not think they win the case, but they are sound.
The due process clause argument is strong.
The CIA is not covered by the laws of war argument is strong.
The idea that these "offshoots" are not covered by the AUMF is not sound imo.
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:38:04 AM PST
"what's in a name?" Because it seems to me that you're saying that an organizational offshoot that has the same name, or is given the same name by us, is automatically affiliated with the 9/11 attacks.
If that's what you're saying, that's a weak argument.
At some point, the executive branch needs to show proof of connections to those attacks, because that's what authorized military force, not just throw out the name "al Qaeda," a name for which there is no authorization of military force and which has become a catchall for an endless war on an endless terror.
by Aunt Martha on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:57:48 AM PST
that the text of the 2001 AUMF is quite clear and it empowers the President to make determinations on this "name" business.
At some point, the Congress has to repeal the 2001 AUMF.
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 12:57:47 PM PST
the text the AUMF says that? Where does it name al Qaeda? Where does it "empower[...] the President to make determinations on this "name" business?"
I don't see anything in the AUMF about names. What I see in the AUMF is about actions--or, more specifically, about a specific action: the 9/11 attack.
And this isn't just hairsplitting. It actually matters a lot. If the AUMF "empowers the President to make determinations on this "name" business," then all the President has to do is say the magic words "al Qaeda" and poof! There's a terrorist, a legitimate target to be attacked.
But if the AUMF is about action, then I think it's perfectly legitimate to ask for evidence that demonstrates a connection to that action.
On this we agree: "At some point, the Congress has to repeal the 2001 AUMF."
by Aunt Martha on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:26:00 PM PST
I think the text is plain and clear on this point.
You disagree with my interpretation.
I'm not sure what else we have to discuss on this point.
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:42:10 PM PST
But I do want to say that it would have been helpful if you had provided evidence from the text itself as to where you see this naming business occurring.
by Aunt Martha on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:53:22 PM PST
to identify the persons "Affiliated" with the groups who carried out 9/11.
Does that help?
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:55:21 PM PST
in what you just offered. And here's the actual text:
In fact, the word "affiliated," which you just used, isn't in the text either. Here's what is:
planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons
I personally would go further and say that if the President makes a determination that there is, it seems to me that it's perfectly legitimate to ask for the evidence upon which the President is making that determination. But that might be a separate issue that muddies the waters here.
by Aunt Martha on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 02:14:46 PM PST
stems from the 9/11 attacks.
I;m not sure if you disagree with that.
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 02:16:17 PM PST
al Qaeda in 2001 was not the same entity as al Qaeda today. If the President can show that there's a connection between a current group somewhere in the world that actually has taken the al Qaeda name, as opposed to being given it by the executive branch, and the al Qaeda that was part of the 9/11 attacks, fine. Because that's what the AUMF states. In fact, if the President can show a connection between any group or person, whether or not they have that al Qaeda moniker, and the 9/11 attacks, the AUMF covers it.
But: 1) the President should have to demonstrate that evidence to some entity outside the executive branch, and 2) to simply say "al Qaeda" gives the President carte blanche is, I think, a misreading of the AUMF, never mind constitutionally scary.
by Aunt Martha on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 02:25:05 PM PST
by the AUMF to make that determination.
You say the President has to show - well he doesn't as a general matter of law of war (though he should).
As a question of Constitutional law, that is the Due Process argument.
As I said, it has strength, but ultimately I do not think it prevails.
But, as I wrote, better process should be instituted.
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 02:28:15 PM PST
that determination is about connection to 9/11. As for the rest, that's why I was hesitant to introduce it, as it just muddied the waters of our basic disagreement about naming vs. action.
So now that I know where you're getting the naming from, I agree that we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
by Aunt Martha on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 02:46:16 PM PST
you grant he can kill anyone anywhere anytime and claim it was by the power granted him in the sep 18 AUMF?
He never has to show, how can he be gainsayed?
Is this what you're arguing is legal?
by majyqman on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 12:33:08 AM PST
I'll make it easy here is the link to the AUMF.
Aunt Martha is entirely correct. This is not a hairsplitting case of words. Section 3 lays out the explicit intention of Congress given its authority under the War Powers Resolution. There is no wiggle room. There is a mention of AlQ in the Justification section, but that is not the same as law. The Law is enumerated in the text specifically Sec. 3
So again please cite the authority in the AUMF that grants the president power to conduct war outside of Iraq?
by Augspies on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 02:19:07 PM PST
The reference is to the 2001 AUMF.
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 02:22:07 PM PST
I linked to the second AUMF the 2002 which is PL 107-243. The language everyone has been arguing over is in the 2001 AUMF which is PL 107-40. This is why it is always helpful to cite, link, or identify by the most specific designation. Since there are two AUMFs (which I was unaware of) simply citing the AUMF can lead the discussion astray. Armando you cited specifically PL 107-40 in your piece, but I entered this discussion in this thread and so I missed that crucial bit of info.
Your detailed argument in your post requires more than I can put into a comment, and I will see if I can address it, but graduate school is a freaking time suck and I'm sure someone will get around to it before I can.
My gut reaction is that the administration's policy is indefensible, hence their reluctance to provide their defense, but I will accord you the courtesy of reading and considering your argument before calling you names. :)
by Augspies on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 07:56:15 AM PST
war that was authorized in response to 9/11, initially in Afghanistan, not the war in Iraq.
"Let's do this!" - Leeroy Jenkins
by AaronInSanDiego on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 10:38:04 PM PST
Actually, Congress did not declare war against al Qaeda
Some "declaration of war"!
by corvo on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 12:01:00 PM PST
I'll highlight the important parts:
ThatthePresident is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
The President has determined that the branches of al Qaeda in Yemen and Somalia are al Qaeda. The AUMF makes his determination, not "Aunt Martha's," the weight of law.
by joe from Lowell on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 02:18:42 PM PST
Aunt Martha's authority supercedes that of the President or of joe from Lowell, and the sooner you realize that the happier your life will be.
As for the rest, I've already been discussing that with Armando, a thread I know you've read since you were rec'cing his comments (which of course Aunt Martha grants you the right to do), so I'm not going to rehash it here.
by Aunt Martha on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 02:50:32 PM PST
You show how difficult this question is, indeed.
But if the AUMF is an exercise of the Congress' war powers (and I disagree that it is, in its essence), and if the war powers trump other provisions of the Constitution, where does it end? To argue ad absurdum (and remember, our present Congress in fact is absurd), could the Congress, in the exercise of its war powers, disregard Art. II Sect. 2 and declare that Senator Blowhard's brother, not the President, will command the armed forces? Indeed, could it disregard impeachment and election provisions and declare that in furtherance of the war effort, the incumbent was relieved of office and Sen. Blowhard's brother would assume the office? What are the limits, if any, of the war powers? Does assassination of US citizens fall within them?
We call things war that ain't necessarily so. Famously, our military intervention in Korea was officially called a "police action", pains being taken to distinguish it from a "war" and everything that word entailed. The Civil War, to use your example, was in fact a "police action". There was no enemy state, for if the USA were to have recognized the CSA as a "state", the whole reason for the military action would have evaporated. Military force was used to enforce the laws of the United States and to protect its citizens and property from persons engaged in treason. There is no doubt that lethal force is permitted in the enforcement of the law against those actively engaged in dangerous felony.
So in this analysis, I think the President's authority to target US citizens for assassination, which citizens are actively involved in treason, arises from his duty to see that the laws are faithfully executed, rather than from Congress' war authorization. One who threatens deadly force against a police officer will be properly killed before he can exercise it. The difference, I think a very important one, is that after the fact the police officer's conduct will be examined according to the law to make sure it was proper in all respects. The President, under the AUMF theory, is subject to no such inquiry. And thus his power is absolute in this regard.
Unless Congress has absolute power, it cannot delegate the same.
by penguins4peace on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:21:20 AM PST
the Consitituton, it is a part of it.
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:27:50 AM PST
the war powers trumped other provisions of the Constitution, not the document as a whole. If so, which other provisions can be trumped, and which cannot? Where and by what authority do we draw the limits?
by penguins4peace on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:24:45 PM PST
Trumped is the wrong framework.
For example, the concept of due process means different things in different settings.
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:45:50 PM PST
the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons,
For the record, I supported the initial incursion into Afghanistan, because America WAS attacked by al-Qaeda, because al-Qaeda was being harbored by the Taliban, and we DO have a right of self-defense.
We won that war. Al-Qaeda barely exists; it obviously poses no threat anymore to American interests or American lives. Now the AUMF is simply providing cover for American aggression--that word again!--against Muslims who have the temerity not to like us very much.
Our present "war" is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
by PhilJD on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:28:20 AM PST
The organization he determined carried out the attacks on September 11 is al Qaeda. We are at war with that organization.
Now the AUMF is simply providing cover for American aggression--that word again!--against Muslims who have the temerity not to like us very much.
by joe from Lowell on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:53:05 AM PST
At most, some of our targets use the same name.
The teabaggers claim the name and use the rhetoric of the American Revolution. Are they truly the spiritual descendents of John Adams and Patrick Henry?
by PhilJD on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:06:20 AM PST
and the President will lose the power to make that determination.
Until that is done, he has that power.
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:23:58 AM PST
Nobody who actually does this for a living agrees with you.
But let's take a look at the AUMF language again, shall we?
Where "he" is the President.
by joe from Lowell on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 02:11:47 PM PST
someone who does actually "do this for a living" to demonstrate that the same al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11 continues to exist in 2013 as a coherent, still-dangerous threat to American interests or American lives...
not in a mountain cave or on a paper flowchart, not some "descendent" group that shares the name, but the same al Qaeda that was implicitly the target of the AUMF.
To continue to believe in the existence of a scary something in the absence of persuasive evidence is tinfoil hat territory, the functional equivalent of seeing Commies under the bed.
by PhilJD on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 02:36:48 PM PST
Al-Qaeda barely exists; it obviously poses no threat anymore to American interests or American lives.
I think we are very close.
by joe from Lowell on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:01:30 AM PST
someone who is 16, what did that 4-year-old have to do with 9/11?
or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001
by gooderservice on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:41:03 AM PST
But it has not been.
That's the legal point.
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:23:15 AM PST
The actual public Law is Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498 (October 16, 2002) . And that does not contain the quote you are citing.
I don't think we disagree but I'm just worried about the propagation of incorrect information.
by Augspies on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 02:31:35 PM PST
some drones over some city in North Dakota because they were "after a terrorist."
by gooderservice on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:37:54 AM PST
Please see section 3 of the AUMF. It specifically authorizes the use of force against the "continuing threat posed by Iraq."
Please explain how that translates into a drone strike in Yemen?
by Augspies on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 02:10:18 PM PST
is null and void any time the government chooses to cook up a phony war?
the purpose of the second amendment is to promote a well-regulated militia, in the same sense that the purpose of the first amendment is to promote a well-informed electorate.
by happymisanthropy on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:08:59 AM PST
The Congress shall have Power...To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Why do you hate Article One Section Eight of the Constitution?
by joe from Lowell on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:13:55 AM PST
It's sad we have to keep saying this.
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:25:24 AM PST
having so recently been the subject of so much commentary, that there are people who still make the argument that a force authorization doesn't declare war.
by joe from Lowell on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 02:21:53 PM PST
war is a legal reality, and that the Constitution allows for it
by david mizner on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:37:30 AM PST
have been saying it for 2 days.
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:25:52 AM PST
by david mizner on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:43:59 AM PST
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 12:58:26 PM PST
hard to provide a link. Daily Kos 101, make an assertion, back it up with a link.
by david mizner on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:15:10 PM PST
Look in THIS thread.
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:16:00 PM PST
What you got and deserved was pushback from people, then you claimed the constitution afforded this without ever provided a declaration of war, because it was never made. Using the AUMF as cover is exactly what those fuckers did so don't hide behind that and refuse to discuss not only the similarities but the expansions that have taken place. [Emphasis supplied.]
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:25:48 PM PST
claim that "war is a legal reality, and that the Constitution allows for it." That's arguing against the claim that the AUMF is a declaration of war. And, just to be clear, I think the AUMF is a constitutional declaration of war, but if you want to claim that people are saying that the Constitution doesn't allow for declarations of war, I think you need a better example.
by Aunt Martha on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:32:02 PM PST
that's the example I was asked for - someone arguing the AUMF is not a Constitutional equivalent of a Declaration of War.
This is a perfect example.
I think you need to reread the request that was made to me.
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:33:37 PM PST
that was made to you. It starts here:
Who's arguing otherwise? (7+ / 0-)
war is a legal reality, and that the Constitution allows for it
by david mizner on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 12:37:30 PM EST
war is a legal reality, and that the Constitution allows for it
by david mizner on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 12:37:30 PM EST
by Aunt Martha on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:40:58 PM PST
But I think Mizner misunderstands the discussion - it is about the AUMF.
At least I thnk it is.
I can never tell these days.
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:43:29 PM PST
you offer a link that shows something else altogether, and I'm the one who doesn't understand the discussion?
by david mizner on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 02:10:53 PM PST
The argument I thought we were referring to was whether the AUMF was a constitutional Declaration of War.
Many people say it was not in these threads.
I thought that was the challenge.
Joe was using hyperbole.
I don;t imagine anyone is not aware of the War Declaration Power.
But nothing surprises me these days.
by Armando on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 02:15:12 PM PST
there are folks here that disavow that the AUMF is reality, and they also disavow the use of AUMFs and similar pieces of legislation used to authorize military conflict for the past 70 years or so.
The missing component it seems is an understanding that when all three branches of government agree that the AUMF is tantamount to a declaration of war, then it is, liberal bloggers notwithstanding.
by jdsnebraska on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:02:38 AM PST
Nobody imagines that the AUMF isn't "reality," but plenty of people here don't think it's Constitutional. Misreadings are such a great excuse not to address main points!
by Cassiodorus on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:42:02 PM PST
and others, you'd find that plenty of people do not believe that the AUMF is unconstitutional simply because it is not a "declared war," which is bullshit.
The only ones misreading the AUMF are those who want executive action to pass their own personal morality test. Fortunately, that is typically different from Constitutional tests. But you are free to find an aggrieved party and sue.
by jdsnebraska on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 06:53:52 PM PST
or just bad grammar.
by Cassiodorus on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:36:50 PM PST
Have a good night.
by jdsnebraska on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:48:07 PM PST
Caught this way too late. Should read "you'd find that plenty of people do not believe that the AUMF is constitutional."
by jdsnebraska on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:57:27 PM PST
with no oversight and then executing them war?
When it's a U.S. citizen, how is it not an unconstitutional end run around Article 3 Section 3?
Or were there two witnesses to the same overt act that I didn't hear about?
by majyqman on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 12:03:44 AM PST
by shaharazade on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:36:38 AM PST
the administration chooses not to engage in it. No justification, no legal rationale for why Americans are being denied American rights. There is no accounting for mistakes - of which the government is capable. What is interesting is that the drone debate is essentially framed as war vs war ... leave aside whether the reading of the AUMF is particularly broad or not ... just a staggeringly narrow band of policy thinking by allegedly smart people.
(granted, very very narrow range of thinking is a hallmark of this administration in many areas)
Extrajudicial killing of Americans is a reality asserted by one President ... this one. It is nice to think that this spigot can be shut off, but considering the very broad standard that has been adopted, it seems pretty likely that this will be the terms under which President Bachmann will be operating her second term in 2021 with.
by sk7326 on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:14:38 AM PST
When the President of the United States does it because of a law passed by the Congress of the United States, then it's legal.
The legality issue is silly. It's legal on its face, based on the Constitution, the AUMF, and the preceding decade+ which firmly established the militarization of the “War” on terror. In a universe where the foundationless invasion of Iraq has come and gone with nary a ripple on the legality front, to get all bent out of shape about a spurious legality debate regarding killing Americans who are fighting with or actively helping people who are fighting with our current military foes is mind-bogglingly disproportionate.
The questions we should be discussing are: Is it moral? Is it wise? Is it effective? If it is none of the above, then we need to convince the President and Congress. The President can opt for alternative methods: armed invasion, scatter-bombing, cruise missiles, etc. And Congress could repeal the AUMF, which would end the whole thing.
Trying to do an end run around this by questioning the legality of how the Commander in Chief is waging a military action that was fully authorized by Congress just distracts attention from things we can actually do to stop it.
by gshenaut on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:38:54 AM PST
Or according to international law? (See Hague)
by majyqman on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 12:47:03 AM PST
by gshenaut on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 06:54:29 AM PST
by joanneleon on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:47:58 AM PST
Of course we can kill Americans on American and foreign soil. We kill Americans on American soil all the time. The last time that comes to mind is that guy in Alabama who kidnapped that kid from a schoolbus and held him hostage. He's dead now. Al Qaeda didn't kill him. We did.
Would anybody like to argue the constitutionality of what happened to him? Feel free, but I assure you, he didn't get due process in court.
I'm not fond of drones either, and I don't want innocent people to be killed, but the bigger issue here is whether we should be at war in the first place.
But as for whether we can kill Americans on American soil? You betcha. We do it all the time. Hell, a police department local to you might be doing it right now, sans due process.
by cirrocco on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:25:15 PM PST
He would have been apprehended and sent to a court if he didn't open fire.
Did Anwar Al-Awlaki shoot at a soldier? Or even at the drone?
Join the fight for student power on campus: ForStudentPower.org
by Liberaltarian on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 05:55:46 PM PST
Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. I'll probably never know. But he was held responsible for it for the same reason that Manson was held responsible for murders where he didn't actually perform it personally. Right, wrong or indifferent, he was held responsible.
But again, anybody who questions whether the government can authorize and justify killing Americans on our own soil is asking a question with an obvious answer.
Hell, you don't even have to necessarily be under the color of authority. In Florida all you have to be is a white guy who feels threatened by a black kid carrying nothing more threatening than Skittles and iced tea.
by cirrocco on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 04:50:02 PM PST
to review. And something to do with the actual meaning of "imminence".
by majyqman on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 12:49:22 AM PST
In the abstract it sounds terrible, no due process to an American citizen, etc. In real life, I am not broken up about Anwar Al Alawki being denied his supposed rights. He didn't commit a domestic crime, he was involved in acts of war against the US. Someone who is involved in making war against a state, regardless of his nationality, is liable to get their ass blown up by said state.
by teetop on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 02:52:37 PM PST
… sympathy for, or the "bad-guy-ness" of, Awlaki in particular, don't you?
[W]hen you endorse the application of a radical state power because the specific target happens to be someone you dislike and think deserves it, you're necessarily institutionalizing that power in general. That's why political leaders, when they want to seize extremist powers or abridge core liberties, always choose in the first instance to target the most marginalized figures: because they know many people will acquiesce not because they support that power in theory but because they hate the person targeted. But if you cheer when that power is first invoked based on that mentality — I'm glad Obama assassinated Awlaki without charges because he was a Bad Man! — then you lose the ability to object when the power is used in the future in ways you dislike (or by leaders you distrust), because you've let it become institutionalized.
by lotlizard on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 05:14:27 PM PST
problem with the executive doing an end run around Article 3 Section 3 by declaring anyone who they would otherwise be required to have the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act an "enemy combatant" and summarily executing them.
Want to know there restrictions on who they could so declare? You wont like the answer.
There are none.
YOU could be named. And it would be legal. If the executions you currently have no problem with how are occuring are allowed to stand (and the exact problem with anyone defending their legality). They just have to claim your association under the Sep 18 AUMF... and no matter how ridiculous it might sound THERE IS NO REVIEW.
Still not broken up?
by majyqman on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 12:54:13 AM PST
by you on soon
Or you may make changes below and Preview again, or Cancel this comment.
Donate to support Daily Kos.
© Kos Media, LLC Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified
“Kos” and “Daily Kos” are registered trademarks of Kos Media, LLC