General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI'm a loyal member of the Democratic Party and I don't have a problem with Drones
and even the targeting of Americans in foreign countries who are conspiring with the people who have declared war on the US, and I will put my morals up against anyone on this board. I suspect that there are others out there like me, but yesterday it seemed like they were in short supply. And yes I was against the Iraq war and some of the things done by the Bush Administration and I don't consider myself to be a hypocrit, and if someone out there disagrees with me, I don't care. For the record, I stopped working just after the SCOTUS decided the elections of 2000 to be a stay at home mom and finishing raising my kids. I had gone to the doctor because of a prolonged headache and discovered my bloodpressure was through the roof from the stresses of raising a family and working. Up until that point, I had spent nearly 5 years in the military, and 16 years with the Defense Dept. Because I have always been a political junkie, I watched every hearing and press conference, leading up to the Iraq war, and I knew that the Bush Administration was lying about WMD for certain right after British Prime Minister Tony Blair's trip to Washington and meeting with Bush.
Fast forward to the current administration. I am an Obama supporter but he has done some things to disappoint me in the past. But the Drone program is not one of them. I'm currently back working with DoD, and members of the military. I think as has been said by others, "you don't know what the threats are until you get those secure briefings that the President gets". FTR, I don't get those briefings and don't want it to sound like I know more than any other "informed" citizen. But I'm not all up in hysteria like many of the posts I've read here that our President has abandoned the Constitution. I don't agree with Rachal Maddow, that a Drone may be coming to your neighborhood soon.
I am of the Opinion, (and yes I know what they say about Opinions) that if you are an American citizen who has renounced this Government and are conspiring with our enemies to destroy this nation, either physically, or financially by destroying our economy through your terrorist threats, than you don't deserve the same rights and priviledges afforded by us that the US Constitution provides that an American citizen here on US soil deserves. Timothy McVeigh received all his due processes, and I don't doubt for a minute that if he were inside the US and conspiring to kill Americans, our Justice Dept would do the right thing. If he were huddling in Afghanistan or Pakistan or Mali for that point and it would put our troops in danger to capture him and bring him to justice, than I would not put the lives of our troops at risk over the life of an expatriate. And if that expatriate, by his choice of activities, puts the lives of his family members in je0pardy, than that is on him/or her.
There was a news article in the past two months about the enormous amounts of surveillance that goes on of suspected terrorists day after day, and month after month, of the same locations to monitor the comings and goings of people at suspected targets. I don't think this administration is engaging in drone strikes willy, nilly.
As I watched Michael Isikoff yesterday evening make the rounds of all the MSNBC shows, I couldn't help but notice a kind of glee in him that he had this scoop. On Morning Joe th a.m., Joe S. seemed upset that the Republicans had not jumped all over this story after having been critical of this President on all sorts of exaggerated claims, and now this was important and not a word out of them. He said that had this been Bush, people would have been calling for impeachment. I'm guessing that the reason we haven't heard a word is because in their hearts, they agree with the President's actions regarding drone strikes. But I'm afraid that now that some of the liberal media has jumped on this story, this may give the rightwingers the courage to condemn the President on this issue as well, and even call for his impeachment. After all, they couldn't impeach him for anything else, (being born in Kenya, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, etc.) and the President's popularity is at an all time high, so lets impeach him for violating some "American" who was living amongst our enemies, and had renounced our government, and declared war on us who was taken out with a drone strike. Just Grand.
If you want to let drone strikes be President Obama's Waterloo, and nothing on the Democratic agenda, get done for the next 4 years than this is the way to start. If you want to let the GOP, the party that we thought was in the throws of self-destruction, regain some momentum, as Dems start an inner war on how best to protect this country, than this is the way to start.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)
liberalmike27
(2,479 posts)But not to principles, right-to-trial, trying to not kill people other than the terrorists.
If I thought it actually decreased the number of terrorists, I "might" be for it. But I think it just makes more, in the present, and especially in the future. It works pretty well if all you want is continuous war.
We need more Democrats that believe in principles, Democratic Principles, and not the things we all got pissed about when Bush did them.
George II
(67,782 posts)....being trained by terrorists to perform terrorist acts against America, that person is a TERRORIST and has forfeited every right he/she had by being an American. He/she is fair game - it's not a one sided affair. That person should be permitted to work against America but we're not allowed to prevent it any way possible?
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)Reagan have thus been allowed to kill by drone any American working with the ANC to end apartheid???????
Jeesh.
George II
(67,782 posts)coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)didn't stop the Chief Executive of the U.S. from labelling them as such. Imagine this authority in the hands of a President Santorum or a President Reagan and you'll understand that no one is safe any longer from the whim of unchecked executive power.
George II
(67,782 posts)coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)anyone, U.S. citizen or not, WITHOUT JUDICIAL REVIEW, Obama is no better than the soldiers who attacked us on 9-11-01. Not one whit better. And anyone who supports Obama on this, imho, is equally culpable. You can rationalize that away by labelling them as 'terrorists' and us as "the good guys" all you want. The empty rhetoric and cheap jingoism means nothing to me any longer.
We have met the enemy and it is us.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)predictable results, as we have now lost 2 wars in little more than 10 years).
Targeting AQ with international police work, while not as 'sexy' or remunerative to defense contractors, would be a hell of a lot more effective. Also, changing our foreign policy so we're not constantly propping up dicatators might go quite a ways to ameliorating the conditions that give rise to forces like AQ.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)That's why we have things like due process. To determine guilt.
Killing someone because they were deemed a "terrorist" is as undemocratic as you can get. Going by that logic, we are all terrorists and the government has the right to kill us on suspicion alone.
Fuck that shit.
George II
(67,782 posts)Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)One can choose to waiver their rights, but that has be done in a formal declaration.
George II
(67,782 posts).....those rights have been forfeited. No formal declaration required.
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)Terrorists captured and held in prisons on u. S. bases have rights and they were never citizens. If even they cannot lose their rights by attacking the US the. How can a U.S. citizen lose their rights by doing the same thing?
George II
(67,782 posts)white_wolf
(6,238 posts)Without a trial you can't punish someone for treason unless you wish to bring back Bills of Attainder which are also unconstitutional. Treason does not waiver a person's rights. They still must be tried by a jury and subject to due process.
I can't believe I am having this discussion here. It is normally conservatives here argue with me over the matter of punishing people without due process.
George II
(67,782 posts)it was an "extra-judicial" killing.
Was that wrong?
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)It was unconstitutional. Executing someone without a trial is a violation of the due process rights guaranteed by the constitution. There is no excuse or decent justification for it.
George II
(67,782 posts)white_wolf
(6,238 posts)I find it very disturbing that you find someone who still believes in rule of law and due process to be so shocking. It's a sad commentary on our times.
George II
(67,782 posts).....and if necessary they have been killing the kidnappers in order to save those that have been kidnappers.
I suppose that before they broke into that bunker the other day they should have gotten a search warrant?
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)That is what this debate comes down to rule. Rule of law and due process vs the need for you to feel safe. Extra-judicial killing is a crime. It is no different than a Bill of Attainder and is unconstitutional.
George II
(67,782 posts)white_wolf
(6,238 posts)You don't allow people who are ruled by emotions to make decisions for the rest of us. That is why we have jury trials instead of allowing the victims to pass judgment. You can't sacrifice freedom for safety. Your line of reasoning is what brought us the Patriot Act. Do you support that as well?
George II
(67,782 posts)kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)carpet bomb these places. A drone is as close to a surgical strike as you're gonna get, other than having a flesh and blood sniper on the ground 50 ft from the target with an unobstructed view.
politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)agree with it.
The day they start spying on me, that is the day when law enforcement has nothing else to do. That would be a good day. FTR, I guess the release of that document yesterday puts all Americans overseas in countries that we are at war with, or that house terrorists on NOTICE of what the policy is.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Remember Paul Wellstone?
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)see if this person is a real Liberal and so would remember that? Or am i missing something? Please explain.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)CT that Wellstone was assassinated, rather than dying in a small plane crash which the NTSB found was caused by "the flight crew's failure to maintain adequate airspeed, which led to an aerodynamic stall from which they did not recover."
NTSB Crash Report here: http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2003/AAR0303.pdf
Sid
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)why just Wellstone? Why if you can kill senators with impunity why pick him? Why let some other people, who are just as big a thorns in his side, wander around?
Bryant
liberalmike27
(2,479 posts)People really liked him, he was the most liberal member, it looked as if he'd win.
Hey, I think it's possible. Some theories just can't be completely rejected. Maybe an air-speed indicator was tampered with.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)But in the absence of more concrete proof, I don't buy it (while still admitting it is possible).
Bryant
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)Things change.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)But I am not going to believe in something without proof.
Bryant
Octafish
(55,745 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Octafish
(55,745 posts)What I do know is labeling people such is an attempt to discredit them as a source of information.
The tradition was started by CIA in answer to critics of the Warren Commission.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)If it involves more than two people, it's a conspiracy, and the explanation of what transpired is a theory, ergo conspiracy theory. The official 9/11 report, by definition, is a conspiracy theory, the official story, but not the only one.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Does the USA PATRIOT Act contain a legal basis for arranging the assassination of political opponents to the national security state's rush to war?
And we don't know the answers, because the government's interpretation of the law is so secret, not even Senators Wyden and Udall can talk about it in public.
That's what I'm referring to.
cali
(114,904 posts)There is NO credible evidence. Not a shred.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)The NTSB said "Pilot Error," somewhat of a default position when the wreckage revealed no definitive cause.
Or the fact that Wolf Blitzer was reporting its cause as "icing," even when the CNN reporter at the scene said other planes reported no icing problems.
I disagree, cali. While I don't know if Sen. Wellstone and the others on the plane were murdered or not, I do know there is a lot we don't know about the crash.
Going from history, I'll side with an open attitude about our kinder, gentler public servants.
From protester to senator, FBI tracked Paul Wellstone
Floyd_Gondolli
(1,277 posts)Look on the NTSB's website and you will find numerous crashes that have not been fully explained.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Floyd_Gondolli
(1,277 posts)But unfortunately I'm not so seeing the evidence of a conspiracy here. And to be honest, you have no proof either other than saying that they are not very nice people, which is of course true, but not necessarily a smoking gun of proof.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)They opposed the illegal war on Iraq in office and in public. What happened to them was not very nice. "Suicides."
How about Mark Lombardi? Or James Hatfield?
They merely used their art to tell the story of Bush and bin Laden before 9/11. "Suicides."
Here's one many missed, back when Pruneface occupied the Oval Office, Robert B. Boettcher:
Know your BFEE: 1984 Death of Outstanding Congressional Staffer Buried Poppy-Moon Relationship
No smoking gun, but the professionals don't leave one lying around.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)TUESDAY, FEB 5, 2013 06:27 PM EST
When liberals ignore injustice
Why isn't there more outrage about the president's unilateral targeted assassination program on the left?
BY JOAN WALSH
Last year Brown University’s Michael Tesler released a fascinating study showing that Americans inclined to racially blinkered views wound up opposing policies they would otherwise support, once they learned those policies were endorsed by President Obama. Their prejudice extended to the breed of the president’s dog, Bo: They were much more likely to say they liked Portuguese water dogs when told Ted Kennedy owned one than when they learned Obama did.
But Tesler found that the Obama effect worked the opposite way, too: African-Americans and white liberals who supported Obama became more likely to support policies once they learned the president did.
More than once I’ve worried that might carry over to bad policies that Obama has flirted with embracing, that liberals have traditionally opposed: raising the age for Medicare and Social Security or cutting those programs’ benefits. Or hawkish national security policies that liberals shrieked about when carried out by President Bush, from rendition to warrantless spying. Or even worse, policies that Bush stopped short of, like targeted assassination of U.S. citizens loyal to al-Qaida (or “affiliates”) who were (broadly) deemed (likely) to threaten the U.S. with (possible) violence (some day).
- snip -
Opponents of Obama’s targeted assassination program have tried to galvanize some public outrage by pointing not to the killing of the senior al-Awlaki, who went public many times with his fealty to al-Qaida and his desire to see the U.S. attacked, but of his 16-year-old son, Abduhrahman, who was killed in a separate targeted strike two weeks later. We don’t know anything about the evidence against the younger al-Awlaki, and liberals who care about the rights of the accused, especially the minor accused, should be expected to care maybe a little bit more about the 16-year-old. Except many don’t. Most famously, when former Obama press secretary Robert Gibbs was confronted by a reporter who questioned “an American citizen that is being targeted without due process, without trial … And, he’s underage. He’s a minor,” he replied:
I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don’t think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business.
It’s hard to imagine Obama supporters defending the punishment of a 16-year-old because he “should have a more responsible father” – let alone capital punishment.
MORE[p]
sadalien
(62 posts)explains a lot
politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)and read more into things than others. I think I was quite explicit in where I stood on the matter. You don't need to try to analyze my words find some hidden meaning in my thoughts.
xchrom
(108,903 posts)assassinations are a hill i prefer not to die on.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I am of the Opinion, (and yes I know what they say about Opinions) that if you are an American citizen who has renounced this Government and are conspiring with our enemies to destroy this nation, either physically, or financially by destroying our economy through your terrorist threats, than you don't deserve the same rights and priviledges afforded by us that the US Constitution provides that an American citizen here on US soil deserves.
So how broad is your interpretation of financial terrorism?
Bryant
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)issued by the Bush administration in May 2007, which allows for the President to become a de facto dictator in a "catastrophic emergency,"
(b) "Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;
Our friend appears to be cool with a tyrant wiping out Occupy Wall Street with drones (as long as no bankers are injured.)
George II
(67,782 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)the most highly efficient and precise way to kill terrorists with the lowest percent of civilian casualties than any other form of warfare in the history of the world. Now in terms of targeting Americans overseas the resolution seems pretty clear about who can be targeted, senior members of Al-Qaeda. On the other hand, ALL WAR SUCKS & is a lack of morality.
But lets not pretend that these drones will be firing missiles at US citizens here in the US.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)All men of military age are considered "suspected militants," unless exculpatory evidence proves otherwise.
Oh, you guys were celebrating the birth of a baby? Whoops! Sorry!
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)The civilian casualty rate with drones is 4-17% while ground war civilian casualty rate was a whopping 46%. In conventional military conflicts over the last two decades, estimates of civilian deaths ranged from about 33% to more than 80%(!) of all deaths.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)that calls bullshit on you.
Living Under Drones: Death, Injury and Trauma to Civilians from US Drone Practices in Pakistan
http://livingunderdrones.org/report/
First, while civilian casualties are rarely acknowledged by the US government, there is significant evidence that US drone strikes have injured and killed civilians. In public statements, the US states that there have been “no” or “single digit” civilian casualties.”[2] It is difficult to obtain data on strike casualties because of US efforts to shield the drone program from democratic accountability, compounded by the obstacles to independent investigation of strikes in North Waziristan. The best currently available public aggregate data on drone strikes are provided by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ), an independent journalist organization. TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562-3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474-881 were civilians, including 176 children.[3] TBIJ reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228-1,362 individuals. Where media accounts do report civilian casualties, rarely is any information provided about the victims or the communities they leave behind. This report includes the harrowing narratives of many survivors, witnesses, and family members who provided evidence of civilian injuries and deaths in drone strikes to our research team. It also presents detailed accounts of three separate strikes, for which there is evidence of civilian deaths and injuries, including a March 2011 strike on a meeting of tribal elders that killed some 40 individuals.
Second, US drone strike policies cause considerable and under-accounted-for harm to the daily lives of ordinary civilians, beyond death and physical injury. Drones hover twenty-four hours a day over communities in northwest Pakistan, striking homes, vehicles, and public spaces without warning. Their presence terrorizes men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities. Those living under drones have to face the constant worry that a deadly strike may be fired at any moment, and the knowledge that they are powerless to protect themselves. These fears have affected behavior. The US practice of striking one area multiple times, and evidence that it has killed rescuers, makes both community members and humanitarian workers afraid or unwilling to assist injured victims. Some community members shy away from gathering in groups, including important tribal dispute-resolution bodies, out of fear that they may attract the attention of drone operators. Some parents choose to keep their children home, and children injured or traumatized by strikes have dropped out of school. Waziris told our researchers that the strikes have undermined cultural and religious practices related to burial, and made family members afraid to attend funerals. In addition, families who lost loved ones or their homes in drone strikes now struggle to support themselves.
Third, publicly available evidence that the strikes have made the US safer overall is ambiguous at best. The strikes have certainly killed alleged combatants and disrupted armed actor networks. However, serious concerns about the efficacy and counter-productive nature of drone strikes have been raised. The number of “high-level” targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low—estimated at just 2%.[4] Furthermore, evidence suggests that US strikes have facilitated recruitment to violent non-state armed groups, and motivated further violent attacks. As the New York Times has reported, “drones have replaced Guantánamo as the recruiting tool of choice for militants.”[5] Drone strikes have also soured many Pakistanis on cooperation with the US and undermined US-Pakistani relations. One major study shows that 74% of Pakistanis now consider the US an enemy.[6]
Fourth, current US targeted killings and drone strike practices undermine respect for the rule of law and international legal protections and may set dangerous precedents. This report casts doubt on the legality of strikes on individuals or groups not linked to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2011, and who do not pose imminent threats to the US. The US government’s failure to ensure basic transparency and accountability in its targeted killing policies, to provide necessary details about its targeted killing program, or adequately to set out the legal factors involved in decisions to strike hinders necessary democratic debate about a key aspect of US foreign and national security policy. US practices may also facilitate recourse to lethal force around the globe by establishing dangerous precedents for other governments. As drone manufacturers and officials successfully reduce export control barriers, and as more countries develop lethal drone technologies, these risks increase.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)is low considering in just Iraq alone we killed 110,000+, percentage-wise. While ground combat troops killed 66,000+ civilians. I am in NO WAY defending violence or war, just statistics.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)the Iraq war has had little affect on US troops.
Snow on 2,500 U.S. Fatalities In Iraq: ‘It’s A Number'
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2006/06/15/5782/its-a-number/
Q Tony, American deaths in Iraq have reached 2,500. Is there any response or reaction from the President on that?
MR. SNOW: It’s a number, and every time there’s one of these 500 benchmarks people want something. The President would like the war to be over now. Everybody would like the war to be over now. And the one thing that we saw in Iraq this week is further testimony to the quality of the men and the women who are doing that, and the dedication and determination to try to ensure that the people of Iraq really do live in a free, effective democracy of their own creation and design.
Carry on then. After all, it's just statistics.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)but I will continue to support him when he's right, and call him out when he's wrong. And if he does nothing to stop this he's wrong.
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)You assume that everyone we kill has "renounced our government" and is conspiring with the enemy. Would you be okay with troops coming to your house and killing your whole family and justifying it after the fact by asserting that they had renounced the government and were conspiring with the enemy? Due process exists because people in authority are capable of mistakes; and just as importantly they are capable of doing really bad things, especially when they believe they are doing good.
politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)I am a black woman who grew up in Los Angeles during the time when Darryl Gates was the head of the L.A. police department and treated the police dept as the military who had declared war in the black community. I have grown up in a community whose civil rights were constantly under siege, and always knew that I didn't have the same constitutional rights that my fellow white Americans enjoyed. So you learn to live with it, if you want to stay alive. Because of my strong black parents, who had a strong work ethic, and who valued education, I was able to rise above and leave my birth surroundings and for the past 30+ years have lived amongst my fellow white Americans, and so I know that there are two worlds in these United States, even for those who have not declared war on America.
About 10 years ago, my sister had her door kicked in by a joint police drug operation. Her house had been selected because her husband was seen on surveillance as talking with a drug dealer who was under surveillance. The drug dealer lived near a park where my Brother in law would go running. BTW, B-I-L was a cop. While no one but my sister's young teen children were at home, there house was overrun by cops, the front door broken and the house ransacked. No drugs were found in their house. Had one of those kids made an inappropriate move they would have been killed. No one in the Police Dept was diciplined. My sister's family received no compensation for the destruction that was done. No apologies were offered. The moral of the story, "Don't talk to drug dealers who are under surveillence." My B-i-L was investigated on his job because of the incident, and the guy was someone he had known from his childhood who just happened to live near the area he ran in, and he had only seen him once outside before that day. This was not by any means a drug neighborhood. It just reinforced for me, that no matter how far removed from the hood you are, as a black person, you don't have the same presumption of innocence as your fellow white Americans.
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)Would you have believed him if he said "trust me, everyone we killed deserved it"?
politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)That says it all for me.
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)Without due process.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)
reACTIONary
(5,770 posts)...the drone attacks are done "in accordance with law" and therefore follow due process.
Iggo
(47,561 posts)
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)reACTIONary
(5,770 posts)...I believe the legal argument concerning water boarding was that it did not constitute torture.
No one is saying that drone strikes do not constitute killing. We are not pretending they are something that they are not. What is being said is that this killing is a justified act of war and is being done in accordance with law. Due process means "in accordance with law."
The example of water boarding is not analogous and is off point.
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)Received due process as well, right? Guess what, that was done "in accordance with the law" too.
reACTIONary
(5,770 posts)...which was violated by the Nazis. The concentration camps were a crime against humanity. Since that is the case the question of "due process" under the laws of the state isn't very relevant.
In American jurisprudence "natural law" or "human rights" is conceived of as "substantive due process", which is a judicial concept that is related to, but different from, the constitutional concept of mere "due process". "Due process" is in accordance with the laws of the state, "substantive due process" is in accordance with the higher law of natural or human rights.
In my experience, references to "due process" in discussions of drone attacks, assassination attempts, extra judicial killings, etc are referring to the constitutional requirement of acting in accordance with the law and thus are not making the much stronger claim that the act constitutes a crime against humanity.
I don't think that the drone attacks we have been discussing constitute crimes against humanity. I think they are pretty much just simple acts of war. And it is a war that has been authorized under the laws of our nation. If the argument is that they are crimes against humanity, the stronger terminology should be used since "due process" is a weak concept in comparison.
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)"Natural law" and the rest of the malarkey you spouted aside, your definition of due process would still include consentration camps, as they were carried out in accordance to the law. It's cool. Rationalize it any way that you like. It's a free country. Sorta.
reACTIONary
(5,770 posts)...is not my definition. For better or worse, it is the definition that applies under the Constitution. It isn't a concept that prohibits or protects us from laws that are bad or unjust, it protects us from actions that are completely outside the law.
I don't believe the drone attacks are outside the law. If you think the law is a bad one, or is unjust, you are right to say so. But saying that the law is not being followed or is being ignored is, I believe, factually incorrect.
Due process is important in the context of a just system of laws to ensure that justice, as defined by law, is done. It is of no use against a system of laws that is unjust.
Obviously, at least to me, the drone attacks are not the moral equivalent of genocide. I think of them as rather simple and straight-forward acts of war. This war may or may not be necessary, it may or may not be good policy, and if you think it is neither, you should argue your case. But it isn't a crime against humanity, and arguing that it is won't put an end to it because the argument won't be accepted.
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)First of all, you have no idea what "Due Process" means. To suggest that Due Process under the 5th Amendment does not include the right to a fair and public trial conducted in a competent manner, the right to be present at the trial, the right to an impartial jury
and the right to be heard in one's own defense is just plain wrong. Totally and utterly wrong. You can't even have a discussion if you don't understand the basic things you are talking about. You are free to argue that drone assassinations are not the "moral equivalent" of genocide. You're right. But what exactly does your definition of morality have to do with Due Process? I certainly never suggested drone assassinations were the moral equivalent of concentrations camps. It was you that mistakenly defined Due Process as "following the law". I simply pointed out that just about everything the Nazis did was written into the law, including concentration camps. Whether the drone attacks are "outside the law" is obviously debatable, as it torture apparently, thanks to GW Bush. What can't be argued is that those assassinated by drones were afforded Due Process. I suggest you read the 5th Amendment again and start over.
reACTIONary
(5,770 posts)RE: You are free to argue that drone assassinations are not the "moral equivalent" of genocide. You're right.
Good! Then in discussing this issue we won't be bringing up Nazis, concentration camps, genocide, etc.
RE: What can't be argued is that those assassinated by drones were afforded Due Process.
Like most enemy combatants in war, they were not arrested, tried and convicted in a court of law. They were shot at an killed. The fifth amendment does not guarantee enemy combatants a trial in a court of law. It doesn't apply to war at all. Since the legal requirements for an act of war were followed, due process has been met.
FYI, Here is a definition of "due process" from the wiki:
Note that it does not equate due process with a trial in a court of law. It simply states that the law be followed, for whatever the circumstances may be. In some circumstances a trial is required. In others, for instance warfare, some other legal procedure or authorization is warranted.
An more authoritative source for this definition is Akhil Reed Amar's America's Consttution: A Biography.
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)You win! Game over man! Game over!
reACTIONary
(5,770 posts)See you in the library!
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)You and Akhil have no worldly idea what due process is, whether he is quoted in Wikipedia or not. It's cool. Your silly definition allows you to rationalize political assassination, so it can't be said to be completely worthless.
reACTIONary
(5,770 posts)Akhil Reed Amar is Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University, where he teaches constitutional law at both Yale College and Yale Law School. He received his B.A, summa cum laude, in 1980 from Yale College, and his J.D. in 1984 from Yale Law School, where he served as an editor of The Yale Law Journal. After clerking for Judge Stephen Breyer, U.S. Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit, Professor Amar joined the Yale faculty in 1985. Along with Dean Paul Brest and Professors Sanford Levinson, Jack Balkin, and Reva Siegel, Professor Amar is the co-editor of a leading constitutional law casebook, Processes of Constitutional Decisionmaking. He is also the author of several books, including The Constitution and Criminal Procedure: First Principles (Yale Univ. Press, 1997), The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction (Yale Univ. Press, 1998), America’s Constitution: A Biography (Random House, 2005), and most recently, America’s Unwritten Constitution: The Precedents and Principles We Live By (Basic Books, 2012).
http://www.law.yale.edu/faculty/AAmar.htm
My bet is he know a bit more than you and I do. His book, America’s Constitution: A Biography is exceptional. You really should check it out.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)
kwassa
(23,340 posts)When the going got tough, Gates took his police out immediately and let the riot explode. All over the city. I saw stores looted and burned all over my neighborhood. They didn't come back for days.
Gates was both a thug and a coward.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)I agree that he let the riots happen.
And remember his statement as chief when he said "casual drug users should be taken out and shot"?
Yeah, except when it's his son...
http://articles.latimes.com/2004/oct/11/local/me-gates11
Asshole.
George II
(67,782 posts)That red herring about troops going to someone's house in the US and killing a whole family is ludicrous. There has never been a hint of this happening, and you know that it would never happen.
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)You may not see a problem with that, but I do.
George II
(67,782 posts)DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)According to the Army at the time.
George II
(67,782 posts)You can find his writings and teachings on the internet if you doubt that he was a dangerous person and doubt that he was involved in teaching and training jihadists.
janlyn
(735 posts)My thoughts exactly!! And it is not a question of whether or not someone in power will abuse this but, only a question of when!!
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I don't think there's much truth to that, but let's grant it for the sake of argument, because I think it's useful to draw out a distinction here.
If I, as a Marine, were on patrol and started taking fire from an American citizen who had decided to help the mujahideen, I seriously doubt there would be much argument that I could return fire, even if I somehow knew that was an American citizen, or that POTUS could order my unit to attack the village he was in. As far as that goes, I think it's pretty uncontroversial: that is an example of an American in arms against the US.
What we're talking about here is the President of the United States deciding that a particular American citizen, because of his actions, can be deliberately targeted for assassination. Not "targeted for arrest and things might get rough when we go get him, wink wink" (that happens in the US every day as it is): specifically targeted to be blown up. He may be giving aid an comfort to our enemies, but there's a huge difference between soldiers killing an American who is at the time of his death actively fighting them, and killing an American who is only "in combat" in the sense that we just launched a missile at him.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)think
(11,641 posts)
SQUEE
(1,315 posts)Jane Fonda would have been a legitimate and necessary target during her trip to North Viet Nam?
appacom
(296 posts)Dawgs
(14,755 posts)And that's the whole problem with this decision.
SQUEE
(1,315 posts)She gave aid an comfort to the enemy, and was a traitor, and in so doing gave up her right as a 'Murcan.
I am just curious what constitutes a good shoot, what are the limits, what is the lowest crime we consider worthy of extra-judicial execution.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)there is a difference in using them in the military enviornment used by the military to cut down on our troops being killed. I am not to happy with the CIA using them. After all their business in some ways I guess is assinations.
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)an ends doesnt always justify the means.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)I include myself in this group.
The question has been asked how would you feel if Bush did this. I probably wouldn't like it... but if I looked in hindsight and he HAD used drones instead of wasting life and treasure on two wars, I don't know...
I also know that I'd rather see drones than "boots on the ground"
Also I'm one of those people who think al-Queda are not nice people and are driven by extremist religious fervor ( always a bad thing).
I believe that they are not our friends.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)it is a moral dilemma and I agree I'd rather see drones than boots on the ground. I also think, in some ways, though there can be and often are civilian casualties from drones, they are lessened when there aren't boots on the ground. Let's face it, not all of our soldiers are good and noble and do some pretty horrific things when at war. Drones would cut down on these acts as well.
The fact of the matter is, we don't live in a non-violent utopia no matter how many of us would like to do so. There will be war and killing. It sounds heartless maybe but I'd prefer more "efficient" means of death than the alternative.
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)Should have been able to decide who should be assassinated? How about Dick Cheney? Would you trust his judgment on who needed to be killed? Would you be comfortable with George Bush assuring you that everyone we whacked was "not our friend"?
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)In the abstract, drone strikes are better than going full-out to war, period. However, we have to "trust the government" now when they decide to send our men and women to war. We all knew the Iraq war was bullshit but there wasn't much we could do to stop it. And there isn't much we can do to stop the use of drones.
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)Using drones in place of soldiers in battle and using drones (or any other means) to assassinate people who aren't on a battlefield because the government says they deserve it. I don't have a problem with the first one either. It's the second one that can't be justified and can't be tolerated.
redstatebluegirl
(12,265 posts)but the world is a very different place and you cannot point out the enemy as easily as in past conflicts. I think it is important to point out that the Americans we are talking about are conspiring with our enemies to do our country and citizens grave harm.
I agree with OKnancy that it is a moral issue but I am finding I am a bit more tolerant of these drones than I used to be....
politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)the ground. These last two wars have been fought with more restrictions on our soldiers than ever before which has put them at risk to save people who strap bombs to themselves, and even women to try and kill us. You are not dealing with conventional warfare.
Cha
(297,415 posts)We have a real enemy, with real victims, who stop at nothing to continue their jihad against the US.
I know what bush did.. he LIED us into Bombing Iraq which evolved into a 9 year war with hundreds of thousands dead including Iraqis. That's the difference between fucking bush and President Obama.
Here's another civil discussion on the subject..
On drones and self-defense http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2013/02/on-drones-and-self-defense.html
cali
(114,904 posts)Congress or anywhere else, I think the drone bombings are going to (already are) cause fierce blowback.
If nothing else it sucks as effective policy.
Logical
(22,457 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Were you okay with it when BushCo did it and Gonzales justified it?
politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)Because all of us knew that it went against the Geneva Convention and for the Bush administration to skirt around it was a hugh problem for me as it was for most people in uniform.
bigtree
(86,004 posts). . . interesting points to consider.
Iggo
(47,561 posts)appacom
(296 posts)Thank you for saying so well the things in my heart
politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)EastKYLiberal
(429 posts)Until this poutrage subsides.
think
(11,641 posts)but trivialize this if you must......
appacom
(296 posts)I raised my kids in Central Ky and spent many years as a Kentucky artist in education, with numerous residencies in eastern Kentucky. There are so many misconceptions about KY, particularly your area. I wish some folks here could visit Appalshop, or read the Mountain Eagle which I hope is still there, and still the best little paper in the country. Have a blessed day!
HomerRamone
(1,112 posts)kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)They started it, too.
Efilroft Sul
(3,581 posts)The roots of our problems with terrorism are buried deeper than 9/11/2001 and the non declaration of war by Congress.
After Bush, Democrats shouldn't even be debating whether or not assassination by executive fiat and flagrant disregard of due process is right or wrong just because "our guy" is in office. If this memo were written prior to 2009, everyone on this board would have their hair on fire and Godwin's Law would have been broken every third post.
As far as I'm concerned, President Obama has lost whatever moral authority he had talking about reasonable gun control when his Justice Department tries to spin legalese around their own trigger-happy "reasoning."
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)Cheers!
politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)But you take umbrage that another would use the same tactic? Really quite the epic fail of ridiculousness.
Livluvgrow
(377 posts)we had snow a few days back. The slopes are slippery.
think
(11,641 posts)Wouldn't want anyone to get hurt on those slippery slopes.....
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)I suspect others here know about as much as I do.
I think a drone could save the lives of US troops when the drone is used in an attack instead of a patrol.
I don't like the idea that innocent people are being killed. They were killed using other methods before the drones came along. We need to end the senseless wars and treat terror attacks as crimes not as attacks on the people of the US.
End the war and stop the need for drones.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)
So someone had their door kicked an another guy got his ass kicked by some douchebag cops and you are using that as your rational?
What if they bust in the door and killed all your friends and instead kicking the shit out of RK they just shot him on the street and them killed anyone else who over to help?
Nevermind, I know, your good with that too.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)chooses whenever he chooses without due process, because you have complete faith in him to have the knowledge and wisdom to always execute the people who need to be executed.
And you're also apparently saying that rightwingers believe that this is a good thing, so they are not complaining about it; and we should not complain about it either because we don't want to stir up the hornet's nest and expose the President to criticism.
We've seen things like this before in this land, and others. A lot of really good people sacrificed, suffered, and died to stop these types of things from happening throughout human history. It must not be tolerated now, or ever, no matter how much you may love your president and believe he can do no wrong. When you are wrong, you are wrong. Justifying and allowing tyranny can only lead to more tyranny.
"That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved."
~~Benjamin Franklin, 1785
~~~~~~~~~
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
Is this what you really want? And have you considered the possibility that the reasons for executing certain individuals are not necessarily done in the real interests of the people of the United States and the rest of the world? What if the reason for these executions is solely for the protection of imperialistic wealthy private global economic interests that the people in other countries don't want to be there? Would you still believe that arbitrary executions sanctioned by the
plethoro
(594 posts)I cannot believe the responses to this header post. Where is Johnny Tremayne?
cutroot
(876 posts)We need to stop treating our own service people as if they are mindless automatons that just grow from trees. Marines are people too.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Operations that might not be worth the "expense" in casualties are suddenly "worth it" with an attack by an unmanned drone. That can lead to the indiscriminate use of drones where caution would advised. Marines can also withdraw if it's clear that what they're attacking is no more than a wedding party. Drones? Not so much.
But your point is well-taken.
politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)Is the intelligence always perfect? No. Can a smart bomb go errant, or off course, yes? The people who are operating drones are not mindless boobs.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)There's no substitute for boots on the ground. My point is that if I were a commander and given a choice between losing 4-5 Marines and sending in a drone, I'd be inclined to send the drone every time. You'd almost have to be sociopath to NOT want to meet the objective without losing any of your own men. And so I think we've become "hooked" on drone attacks as being a non-messy (for us, anyway) method of achieving a goal.
cutroot
(876 posts)Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)This isn't one of those $19.95 gizmo's they have for sale at kiosks in the mall around Christmas time, right?
Edit: Although it's not clear from the article if they are being used by the U.S. to complement drone strikes.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)And I'm willing to be persuaded if someone has better information, is that in the Civil War, the Lincoln Administration never sought or received a declaration of war against the Confederacy because the Union did not recognize their legal existence. Lincoln's proclamation seeking volunteers for the United States Army in April 1861 merely states that the laws are not being enforced in those states (he names the ones that had seceeded at that time) and that the volunteers are need to restore order.
To my knowledge, none of the approximately 94,000 Confederate soldiers killed in action were ever charged with a crime, nor were they represented by an attorney or allowed to present evidence on their behalf before being executed by federal troops on a host of battlefields.
Unless there's a compelling reason to think otherwise, if you've renounced your country and are actively seeking its destruction by aligning with Al-Queda or any other hostile nation or force (the Confederacy was considered a "belligerent power" throughout the Civil War ), then you're no longer protected by the United States Constitution. It doesn't matter if you're wading ashore as part of a foreign invasion force or constructing IED's in a safe house in an American city.
think
(11,641 posts)I don't condone the war on terror as a legitimate war. It's a slogan that allows the military to kill whomever gets in their way. The Civil War was a REAL war with uniforms and armies readily defined on OUR soil.
How about the poor blokes in Yemen who we declare as suspected terrorists because they oppose our dictator there? Yemen is NOT a democracy. It is right wing military dictatorship. The people killed there were not plotting terrorists acts against America. If they have plotted anything it is against the dictatorship we prop up so we can protect our oil pipelines from Saudi Arabia.
So in this case drones are already being used to enforce policy rather than to defend America from a certain terrorist threat.
Anywhere, anyone, at anytime a drone can render annihilation without anymore justification than the persons were "suspected militants".
That's total bullshit if you believe in a rule of law.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)There was never a declaration of war sought or received.
Are you suggesting that it's all right to kill people if they're weating a uniform, but if they attack in street clothes they're not to be touched?
Based on the DOJ memo, the threat to Americans must be imminent. I have no idea why the "poor blokes in Yemen" were targeted, but unless they were planning an attack directed at the United States, they should not be targeted. The powers that be in Yemen need to take care of themselves, but that being said, there have been a host of terrorist attacks by Al-Queda in Yemen, dating back to the attack of the USS Cole in 2000. So if any of those "poor blokes" were responsible for those, I'm somewhat less than sympathetic.
think
(11,641 posts)Yet you will defend their deaths as justifiable without any proof that they were an imminent threat to America.
There is a history of Yemeni officials lying to protect the US, and the Pentagon and CIA greeting queries with obfuscation
Chris Woods
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 6 September 2012 07.28 EDT
The attribution of dozens of further possible drone attacks – and others reportedly involving US ships and conventional aircraft – remains unclear. Both the CIA and Pentagon are fighting dirty wars in Yemen, each with a separate arsenal and kill list. Little wonder that hundreds of deaths remain in a limbo of accountability....
~Snip~
There is a long history of senior Yemeni officials lying to protect Barack Obama's secret war on terror. When US cruise missiles decimated a tented village in December 2009, at least 41 civilians were butchered alongside a dozen alleged militants, as a parliamentary report later concluded.
As we now know, thanks to WikiLeaks, the US and Yemen sought to cover up the US role in that attack. We'll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours," President Saleh informed US Central Command (Centcom)'s General Petraeus....
~Snip~
There is a growing gulf between what Yemen's people are experiencing and what their government claims. Bafana says Yemen's official news agency Saba has only used the word "drone" once since February 2011. A confirmed US strike on August 29 killed not only three alleged militants but a policeman and a local anti-al-Qaida imam, according to local reports. Those civilian deaths remain absent from Saba's coverage....
~Snip~
Full article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/06/drone-deaths-yemen
There is ZERO accountability and no one is required to defend or take responsibility for killing those who may have been completely innocent.
I don't defend America's propping up of third world dictators and NEVER will. Democracy is for all nations not just the select few......
And here's your Yemen "president":
~Snip~
Hadi was born in 1945, in Thukain village in Abyan, a southern Yemeni governorate. He graduated in 1966 after receiving a military scholarship to study in Britain, where he also learned to speak English. Then, in 1970, he received another military scholarship to study tanks in Egypt for six years. Hadi spent the following four years in Soviet Union studying military commanding. He occupied several military posts in the southern Yemen army until 1986, when he fled to Sana’a with Ali Nasser Mohammed, president of South Yemen, after Ali Nasser's faction of the ruling Yemeni Socialist Party lost the 1986 civil war.[6]
~Snip~
Hadi was the sole candidate in the presidential election that was held on 21 February 2012. His candidacy was backed by the ruling party as well as the parliamentary opposition. The Election Commission reported that 65 percent of registered voters in Yemen voted during the election. Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi took the oath of office in Yemen's parliament on 25 February 2012. [7] He was formally inaugurated as the president of Yemen on 27 February 2012, when Saleh resigned from the presidency and formally ceded power to Hadi.[8]...
~Snip~
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd_Rabbuh_Mansur_Hadi
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)I have no idea why the "poor blokes in Yemen" were targeted, but unless they were planning an attack directed at the United States, they should not be targeted.
So your reading comprehension problem aside...
I give not even two shits for the President of Yemen. The thing about which I do give two shits is that an organization that murdered nearly 3,000 innocent civilians in cold blood is attempting to establish a terrorist safe haven in Yemen. If our actions against Al-Queda provide a collatoral benefit to the government of Yemen, then that is what it is. But ultimately it's up to the people of Yemen and their government to decided what to do about their domestic situation.
think
(11,641 posts)with no justification given.
Putting a "but if they weren't terrorists" clause in your answer means nothing. They are DEAD already. You've already stated that you support the president acting in this matter and trust his decision without over site.
You can't qualify your response if you condone the whole premise that the president has the right to target anyone without transparency, over site, or justification......
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)You just pull the "reductio ad absurdum" lever every single time.
I find it delightfully ironic that you use the handle "think" when you post stuff like this.
BTW, it's spelled "oversight."
And also BTW, if you don't think the leadership in Yemen is legitimate, take it up with the United Nations. "The presidential elections late-February marked another important milestone, confirming Yemen’s former deputy president as the country’s new leader."
think
(11,641 posts)If you condone the president's actions without over sight then you can't act like you might disagree when he's wrong and pretend like you didn't approve before hand of his actions..
So throw shit around but you are just playing with words.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Once you grasp the fundamentals of your mother tongue, perhaps we can have a discussion.
But as I said, if you don't like the guy in charge in Yemen, you need to take it up with the United Nations, which recognizes the al-Hadi Administration and has given it cautious praise for moving toward full democracy after thirty years of dictatorship. Human Rights Watch says basically the same thing. so you'll just have to forgive me if I give credence to those organizations over some anonymous, spelling-challenged dude on the internet.
To your other point, the drone program is not without oversite.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/middleeast/la-na-drone-oversight-20120625,0,7967691,full.story
Could it be improved? Probably. I'm not in a position to know for certain one way or another, but in the meantime, I'm going the assume that if the Republicans majority in the House could make an issue of this subject, they would make an issue of this subject.
Their silence on the subject speaks volumes.
think
(11,641 posts)27 June 2003 –
The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights’ personal representative for Cuba has appealed to President Fidel Castro to pardon 50 Cubans sentenced to long prison terms recently on charges of treason.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=7551&Cr=cuba&Cr1=
And they call Saddam Hussein president too!:
The senior United Nations envoy in Iraq today condemned the abduction and killing of a defence lawyer in trial of ousted President Saddam Hussein before the Iraqi Higher Tribunal.....
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=18942&Cr=Iraq&Cr1=#.URLxRWdX00w
So play with words to win an argument if you must. But I prefer to call a dictator a dictator.
And as for human rights .....
In its 2013 report on Yemen, Human Rights Watch - prominent rights organization - established that while Yemen had transitioned away from deposed President Ali Abdullah Saleh, the government had yet to prove the state is more mindful of its citizens' rights as well as its obligation of care, fairness and equality in its dealings.
~Snip~
In regards to Yemen issues with recruitment of child soldiers, HRW accused both the government and the opposition of perpetuating the trend, hence disregarding international conventions.
"Human Rights Watch received credible reports of Islamist militants and pro-government popular committees deploying child soldiers in Abyan."
Moreover, reports from local rights researchers and activists highlighted that schools were still being used as bases for militias and government troops, preventing children from properly attending schools and putting civilians populations at risk to be caught in a cross-fire or military escalation.
~Snip~
While Yemen made some positive changes toward becoming a more open and human rights' abiding society, the state will have to implement reforms at a much greater speed and assertiveness if it is to fulfill its citizens' demands...
http://www.yemenpost.net/Detail123456789.aspx?ID=100&SubID=6488&MainCat=5
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/yemen
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)by the United Nations. As is Abd al-Rab Mansur al-Hadi of Yemen. We don't make exceptions because somebody on the internet thinks we shouldn't. This may be difficult to understand, but not everybody gives a rat's ass what you think on the subject. A universal declaration of "persona non grata" made by "think" on Democratic Underground doesn't really carry much weight.
You want to call him a dictator? Knock yourself out.
think
(11,641 posts)But that's about it......
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)and THEY started it.
And I haven't seen any evidence of drone strikes or extrajudicial executions on American soil by our military.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Is that we're trying to apply the Magna Carta to a 21st century international security issue. As has been pointed out many times before, you can't have a "war on terrorism" because you can't have a war on a noun. But as the United States and other nations try to confront the threat posed by multi-national, non-governmental belligerant powers, our traditional notions of both warfare and legal rights have to be re-examinted to determine how best meet this new danger.
I'm not saying that we should throw out the 6th Amendment, but the fact is that a strict adherence to traditional constitutional law amounts to a "twelfth man" on the field on behalf of the terrorists. They are, I am certain, counting on our inability to deal with the threat based on existing law and using that to their advantage.
HomerRamone
(1,112 posts)before you're so sure who started "it"...
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)A big part of the problem is who determines that and how. You don't get to leave that out of the argument.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)As I understand the DOJ memo (and I have a copy of it right here), the individual must be "an operational leader of al-Qa-ida or an associated force and is personally and continually involved in planning terrorist attacks against the United States." Now there's still some wiggle room there, but if you're known to be activitely participating in planning terrorist attacks, and you've placed yourself in a terrorist stronghold or hide-out, you're not likely to be an innocent bystander. The language of the memo doesn't allow for the target to be some vaguely disgruntled U.S. citizen who joins al-Qa-ida as a foot soldier (i.e., John Walker Lindh). You're got to be at least in "middle management" to get a target.
Which begs the question, who would that be? The only one I can think of is Anwar al-Awaki, and he's already dead. I'm not privvy to any classified information, but I don't know of any prominent Al-Queda leader who is also a U.S. citizen.
I should point out that another requirement in the memo is that the target must be in a situation where "a capture operation would be infeasible." I understand this to mean that the target is beyond the reach of conventional law enforcement -- holed up in a third-party country (i.e., Bin Laden in Pakistan) where local law enforcement appears unlikely or unwilling to complete the task. As far as Americans on U.S. soil, I really can't think of too many scenarios where this would be the case -- at least scenarios that don't look like rejected plots of "McGiver" episodes.
To get back to your original question, I have no idea how any admnistration would obtain permission before the fact to target a terrorist. Assuming the Obama Administration wanted to be transparent, to whom would they go? Congress? The Court? They're no more constitutionally authorized to approve an operation of this nation than is the executive branch. I think we've reached a point where modern warfare and technology have far outraced the law. Right now, the Obama Admnistration is using whatever tools at its disposal to fight terrorism.
At some point (how about now) Congress and the President need to have a serious discussion about the rules of engagement.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)
bobduca
(1,763 posts)"If you want to let drone strikes be President Obama's Waterloo, and nothing on the Democratic agenda, get done for the next 4 years than this is the way to start."
We have to keep killing people with flying drones or Republicans will win!!11111
Apologia not accepted.
Jerry442
(1,265 posts)It's early in 2016. Jeb Bush is looking to be the likely Republican nominee. His key issue is we must invade Iran immediately. Best reasonable guesses are that this will lead directly to the deaths of perhaps half a million Iranians and ten to twenty thousand American troops. Plausibly, this would radicalize the Pakistanis to the extent that their current government would be overthrown by Islamic extremists who would then have possession of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, which they might plausibly use against American or other targets, causing an inestimable number of casualties.
We could, one might argue, defuse the whole situation by whacking Jeb Bush. Doesn't the current policy pretty much allow for that?
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)The policy allows for nothing even remotely of the sort.
Jerry442
(1,265 posts)In the scenario, Jeb Bush is a plausible threat to American lives and property and someone who many would say would (in the scenario) be acting against the interests of the United States
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)The target must be an imminent threat to American lives -- and advocating a foreign policy that may (or may) not prove to be fool-hardy at some point in the indefinite future does not constitute an imminent threat -- no matter how much one might choose to torture that definition. Capturing the target also must be considered infeasible --- now however you might choose to define "infeasible," I think that caputuring someone of Jeb Bush's stature is probably not going to be terribly difficult.
Jerry442
(1,265 posts)Without due process or disclosure (after the fact), how could we possibly know the decision maker's interpretation makes any sense to the man in the street? And yes, it would be enormously difficult to detain Greb (see below) because of his prominence. Much easier to have a tragic plane accident.
Note: I realize now that naming a real person was a big mistake. 
In any future discussions, we'll talk about hypothetical evil politician Greb Fush.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)You posed a scenario where the President could use the law to eliminate political opposition. It doesn't make any difference whose name you put on it. Do you really think a future President is going to use a drone attack to take out a political opposition figure, whether that figure is located in a busy urban neighborhood (dozens of collatoral deaths) or traveling down a secluded highway?
If our democracy has deteriorated to that point, it's not going to make the first damned difference what some memo from the Department of Justice does or does not say. By the time any future President launches a drone strike for purely political reasons, democracy in this country will have been long since dead.
MirrorAshes
(1,262 posts)You are not alone in your thinking.
think_critically
(118 posts)All of this talk about how these drone strikes are so wrong bothers me. Yes there needs to be more transparency but what would people have them do and would it make a difference if there was a pilot in the drone. If you have an American terrorist plotting to do harm to the US and can't be captured then do you just let it go. That is what a lot of you are proposing. In fact, how is that any different from the police shooting a suspect who is holding someone hostage. That suspect had no trial but was deemed an imminent threat and was subsequently killed. All of this talk about govt watching us and encroaching on our civil liberties is kind of ironic coming from folks who probably use social media and have no problem with every google search they run being stored in some database somewhere. Sadly folks on the left aren't immune to fear mongering as well.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)"Party loyalty" instead of moral conviction can lead to the kind of madness we saw during the Bush years. You do the Democratic Party NO favors when you turn a blind eye to wrongs committed. It is because of people like you that war criminals walk free, financial criminals walk free, and our planet continues on it's swift decline.
Wrong is wrong. Period.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)time and time again.
COORACPRO
(12 posts)This method has worked for years, it beats the hell out of sending in a 100000 man army, and is certainly a lot cheaper. When you as an American citizen decide to side with our sworn enemy, you in my book are in the enemy's camp and will suffer the same fate as any enemy of this country.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts) think
(11,641 posts)
hughee99
(16,113 posts)The IMPORTANT thing is that we're willing to accept almost anything as long as the "right people" are in charge. 
leftstreet
(36,109 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)I would say there could be a bias involved in this stand of yours.
think
(11,641 posts)
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
MynameisBlarney
(2,979 posts)as they are to me.
As for the drones...I'm torn.
I think it sets a terrible precedent.
War by proxy.
However, it does keep our troops and our allies out of harms way on missions that would be insanely difficult to do the old fashioned way.
Though I do wish that we weren't even over there period. But since the reality is that we ARE there, we must protect our troops and our allies.
Honestly.
I think the cons outweigh the pros in the long run though.
politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)as either black or white who are the problem. It's easy to have an opinion when you are not the decision maker. This is why it's important that we put elect people with intelligence and integrity.
MynameisBlarney
(2,979 posts)I think that drones are pretty damn cool.
Then I think how easily they could be used against us, here in this country.
They are a tool that could very easily be abused by the govt.
Politicub
(12,165 posts)Let's just face facts. We're brutal to the weakest among us by shredding the social safety net. We're brutal to other nations by engaging in perpetual wars and by recklessly throwing around our power. Our early days as a republic were filled with brutality against native Americans and slaves. We're brutal against petty drug addicts by locking them away in a runaway prison industrial complex.
Unless someone has been on the battlefield they don't know the wages of war. Required military service for all Americans for one to two years may do a lot of good. I like to think we can be at peace one day, but it will never happen until war stops being an abstraction.
And with all that said, I agree with your post. I'm not going to engage in debates about this issue on DU since it turns into another absolutist battlefield not unlike gun debates. Plus I haven't heard evidence that the policy is being abused.
Yes, there is much opportunity for drone abuse. But no matter how much we want to put the genie back into the bottle, drone warfare is a reality now just as we could not unring the bell of atomic weapons. And the irony of universal service vs. drone warfare isn't lost on me.
It's not a matter of good or bad anymore. It's the reality we find ourselves in.
George II
(67,782 posts)
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)to anonymous groups of people to kill people without trial or oversight. It seems that this new form of justice has left out public scrutiny or notice--and even leaves public trust out of the equation.
The American public has no say in the matter, we never voted for this, and we have no reprieve if these missions go wrong. Just like all of the secret covert ops, we are at the mercy of groups of people who answer to no one.
We are being asked to just trust people with unlimited power to define and decide who lives and who dies--and if you cannot fathom what is wrong with this then you have some soul searching to do.
Situations may very well look different with access to inside information, but without public checks and balances, this equation enables corruption to thrive. I am shocked and dismayed to find that this simple prime directive that America was founded on can so easily be swept aside--and if so we do not have a democracy at all.
I am so sad to read this post today~~Felix
Sadiedog
(353 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I think it was over the Enabling....forgive me, the US Patriot Act.
So will you be ok as well when the next logical step is taken and the Drones flying on US Space over CONUS are armed?
pocoloco
(3,180 posts)Happy fucking trails!!
skydive forever
(445 posts)almost exactly how I feel. Could this power be abused, yes, but I cant imagine that happening for long without other forces stoping it. I have 2 friends who were both full bird colonels, and I trust that the men that make it to that type of level wouldn't allow it to be abused for too long. Have some faith in the system.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)
After how many dead, how much wasted money, how much bad precedent made concrete?
What a pile of rationalizing crap.
patrice
(47,992 posts)For example GWB and the whole "Preventative War" paradigm and the Constitution:
Today is very different from when the Constitution was written. Threats can be extremely small and have the biggest consequences there are, e.g. biological warfare.
Just because some people, e.g. GWB, use the concept of Preventative War in services to very limited and dishonest agendas for the 1% and in so doing he did something similar to adding 2 + 2 and a lot of people helped him by LYING and others helped him by contributing Plausible Deniability, "accidentally" getting the calculation wrong on purpose, and others, like most of us American people, just honestly got it flat out wrong . . . . just because GWB got Preventative War wrong and, by way of analogy, added 2 + 2 and got 100,000,000+ (and a bunch of NO BID, guaranteed cost+10% contracts in the process !!!) - NONE of that means that 2 + 2 DOES NOT , CANNOT, = 4.
Just because something has not happened that does not mean that it cannot happen. There are different probabilities to whether X can happen and we CAN calculate those. And making somekind of FALSE GOD out of the Constitution smacks of FASCISM to me, so my guess is at least SOME of the pressure against drone projects is coming from people who don't want the rest of us to be aware of whatever they are doing. We are just supposed to trust that ALL OF THEM are all about "Imagine all the people . . . ". We are just supposed to trust that they (or someone around them) aren't doing something that can likely get a bunch of people, who had NO CHOICE in the matter, hurt, suffering, and dead. So the tasks are about determining the strength of my last use of the word "likely", as in just how probable certain outcomes/consequences are and then to make RATIONAL decisions based upon that empirical information.
And if "Constitutional" FASCISTS want all of us to just pretend that X is more important, so important that we should risk lives for it, they MUST pony up here and tell us what the acceptable price of X is, i.e. just HOW MANY PEOPLE IS IT OKAY THAT THEY DIE if they are wrong about how important that "Constitutional" X is. They need to tell us what the price of being right or WRONG about "Constitutional" X is in DEAD PEOPLE and since that IS their claim they also should be completely willing to utterly reveal everything about themselves and anyone who agrees with them.
AnnieK401
(541 posts)I have some concerns about how widely drones are being used, but basically agree with you. The POTUS is obligated to keep this country safe, and we don't have all the information that he has. At some level we have to trust his judgement. I do trust Obama's judgement. I did not trust the judgement of Bush. That is not to say that we can't raise questions and I think we have a right to some level of information and explanation when something like this is being done in our name IMHO.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,422 posts)I appreciate the moral, ethical, and legal issues being raised here (and elsewhere) and I admit some uneasiness with the situation. OTOH I wonder what the alternatives are or might be for getting people we know are instigating/planning (and possibly in the process of carrying out) terrorist attacks against our country, particularly when they are well out of our reach in countries with weak and/or non-functioning governments whom have almost no ability to capture/detain them for us or, in some cases, officially allow our troops and intelligence agents to operate within them. The matter is troubling but complicated.
randome
(34,845 posts)Some are beheading women and cutting the hands off unbelievers. We operate in most countries at invitation. A drone, like any other device, can be misused but, on balance, I believe we are doing some good with taking a stand against terrorists and enslavers.
I think it's the word 'drone' that gets people all in a lather. It's such a sinister-sounding word.
think
(11,641 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Sorry, but Hussein was a dictator, too and we should have continued to back him instead of ruining Iraq for hundreds of thousands.
think
(11,641 posts)sometimes these things are self evident......
Yemen's "president" won an election with no opponents, was the "vice president" under the former dictator, and has a life long career as a military leader. Again it's pretty easy to see the handwriting on the wall.
As for Hussein the CIA put that monster into power. They created the hell he reigned. The Iraq war wasn't about democracy. It was about oil and war profiteering. We could deal with Hussein in other ways like NOT selling him weapons of mass destruction:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/06/17/how-reagan-armed-saddam-with-chemical-weapons/
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Human Rights Watch. Amnesty International. The United Nations.
What do these three organizations have in common? NONE OF THEM have questioned the legitimacy of the current administration in Yemen. All three have been critical, to be sure, but they have also noted that that Yemen has made positive steps toward democracy (such as freeing dozens of political prisoners from the previous regime). And they're doing this in the teeth of an Al-Queda insurgency that at one point gained control of a substantial portion of the country. The fourteen months of Al-Queda control in southern Yemen was called a "human rights catastrophe" by Amnesty International on account of atrocities committed there -- atrocities that were halted (in part) by the use of drone strikes.
Now would I like to live under the current administration? Probably not. But given a choice of the Al-Hadi government, its predecessor, or Al-Queda, you'd be an idiot to turn up your nose at the current "dictator" in Yemen. The situation there is complicated, and you have clearly grasped neither the history of the country nor it current situation.
think
(11,641 posts)with NINETEEN YEARS in office under the old dictator to run unopposed in a hastily called election with promises of change.
Oh and of course blanket immunity for the old dictator, his chronies, and his family. POOF! The dictatorship is gone!
But that was so early 2012! This is 2013. Yemen is now a completely free and open democracy! That is unless you READ any of the articles I posted which state otherwise. All those murdered citizens in 2011 FORGOTTEN. The Vice President was there. The SAME military is STILL there.
Even your own claimed source, Human Rights Watch, refutes your claims that Yemen is making the progress you speak of:
In its 2013 report on Yemen, Human Rights Watch - prominent rights organization - established that while Yemen had transitioned away from deposed President Ali Abdullah Saleh, the government had yet to prove the state is more mindful of its citizens' rights as well as its obligation of care, fairness and equality in its dealings.
~Snip~
In regards to Yemen issues with recruitment of child soldiers, HRW accused both the government and the opposition of perpetuating the trend, hence disregarding international conventions.
"Human Rights Watch received credible reports of Islamist militants and pro-government popular committees deploying child soldiers in Abyan."
Moreover, reports from local rights researchers and activists highlighted that schools were still being used as bases for militias and government troops, preventing children from properly attending schools and putting civilians populations at risk to be caught in a cross-fire or military escalation.
~Snip~
While Yemen made some positive changes toward becoming a more open and human rights' abiding society, the state will have to implement reforms at a much greater speed and assertiveness if it is to fulfill its citizens' demands...
http://www.yemenpost.net/Detail123456789.aspx?ID=100&SubID=6488&MainCat=5
So split all the hairs and play with words all you want. Yemen may not be called a dictatorship anymore than we call Saudi Arabia a dictatorship. But when you peel back the glossy cover, the dark authoritarian underbelly of the governing body is easily seen. That is unless you decide like you have to NOT see it.....
And here is your so called imminent threat:
C"ertain aspects of this legal framework require additional explication. First, the condition that an operational leader present an "imminent" threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons will take place in the immediate future. "
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/02/obamas-memo-on-killing-americans-twists-imminent-threat-like-bush/272862/
So neither America nor Americans need to be in immediate danger for a situation to be called an imminent threat and the perceived enemy and any bystanders to be immediately pulverized by a drone strike.
http://stpeteforpeace.org/yemen.html
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Cutting and pasting is not learning.
The former military dictator of Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh, was the head of the General People's Congress. The GPC was the dominant political party in Yemen for decades. Starting in the past decade or so, Yemen has had elections. Real elections. Now there were irregularities in the voting (just as there are here) but by and large international observers agree that the elections were basically legitimate. So Saleh was the elected President -- perhaps by putting his thumb on the scale, but when you're the incumbent (for twenty-plus years), you've got certain advantages.
Saleh won the 2006 Presidential Election with 77% of the vote, while a candidate representing a coalition of opposition parties (the JMP) got the rest. The General People's Congress also won the 2003 Parliamentary Elections with 58% of the vote.
Flash forward to the Arab Spring. Protests started breaking out all over Yemen, and it became clear that Saleh would not be able to hang on to power. In November 2011, Saleh left the country and his Vice President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi took over an interim government, until elections could be held in February 2012. When the time came for elections, the General People's Congress (the ruling party) and the JMP (the opposition party) BOTH nominated Hadi to be their candidate.
So why was there only one candidate on the ballot? Because BOTH sides agreed the Hadi was the best person to transition Yemen from a military dictatorship to something that looked like a democracy. Hadi is the "unity candidate" widely supported by both sides.
The bottom line from the HRW report that you're citing: While Yemen made some positive changes toward becoming a more open and human rights' abiding society, the state will have to implement reforms at a much greater speed and assertiveness if it is to fulfill its citizens' demands. You're expecting Yemen to implement broad human rights reforms while simultaneously trying to fight off a terrorist army. And NOW you want them to do it without the military assistance of the United States.
Which gets us back to the original point. As I said in my first or second post on the subject, it's up to the people and the government of Yemen to take care of their domestic affairs. OUR interest in Yemen is strictly limited to the fact that Al Queda, which has vowed to continue carrying out terrorist attacks against the United States, is attempting to establish a safe haven there.
American policy for more than a decade is that we're going to pursue Al-Queda wherever they go. We're going to smoke them out, disrupt their operations, and ultimately destroy their ability to attack us. In this particular case, we have the blessing of the Yemini government to do this -- that our actions ultimately aid in stabilizing the government of Yemen is fortuitous for both sides.
Now should we do this unilaterally? No. Not in someone else's country. The Obama Administration should be consulting with the Hadi Administration AND with Congress so that everybody understands the rules of engagement.
think
(11,641 posts)which refute your very claims that the situation is improving in the manner you've suggested so please spare me your condescension.
Your words with bold added for emphasis:
the United Nations, which recognizes the al-Hadi Administration and has given it cautious praise for moving toward full democracy. Human Rights Watch says basically the same thing.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2325007
I posted an article which discusses the report by HRW . A report that shows children are still being used in the Yemen military and other BLATANT AUTHORITARIAN activities and you try to discredit YOUR OWN SOURCE as just a cut and paste job. That is absurd:
~Snip~
Tawakkul Karman - 2011 Nobel Peace prize winner - sent a letter to the UN Security Council earlier this week demanding the very thing revolutionaries have been clamoring for over the past year -- a lift of the immunity, Saleh's forced departure of Yemen and a freeze of assets for all men and women linked to the looted funds of Yemen
~Snip~
"Human Rights Watch received credible reports of Islamist militants and pro-government popular committees deploying child soldiers in Abyan."
Moreover, reports from local rights researchers and activists highlighted that schools were still being used as bases for militias and government troops, preventing children from properly attending schools and putting civilians populations at risk to be caught in a cross-fire or military escalation.
The right group also criticised the government for failing to address issues relating to Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech, saying journalists were still living under the tyranny of Yemen specialized media courts - which by their nature are contrary to international press freedom standards -
~Snip~
Addressing Yemen's fight against terrorism, HRW reported - according to the Bureau of
Investigative Journalism (TBIJ), a UK-based public interest reporting service - the government authorized 83 US-led drone strikes against alleged al-Qaeda militants and/or hideouts which in turn led to the death of at least 173 civilians -amongst whom women and children -
TBIJ reported lack of access to the targeted areas prevented independent verification of the data, including the number of civilian casualties.
~Snip~
HRW warned against the ill effects of sexism and child marriages as they were both clear and grave violations of one's human rights.
"Child marriages remain widespread,
~Snip~
http://www.yemenpost.net/Detail123456789.aspx?ID=100&SubID=6488&MainCat=5
And this is the SAME human rights group that wrote THIS paper on the use of drones!:
November 19, 2012
This 50-page report outlines concerns about these fully autonomous weapons, which would inherently lack human qualities that provide legal and non-legal checks on the killing of civilians. In addition, the obstacles to holding anyone accountable for harm caused by the weapons would weaken the law’s power to deter future violations.
~Snip~
In this report, the terms “robot” and “robotic weapons” encompass all three types of unmanned weapons, in other words everything from remote-controlled drones to weapons with complete autonomy. The term “fully autonomous weapon” refers to both out-of-the-loop weapons and those that allow a human on the loop, but that are effectively out-of-the-loop weapons because the supervision is so limited.[3] A range of other terms have been used to describe fully autonomous weapons, including “lethal autonomous robots” and “killer robots.”[4]
~Snip~
Conclusion
Fully autonomous weapons have the potential to increase harm to civilians during armed conflict. They would be unable to meet basic principles of international humanitarian law, they would undercut other, non-legal safeguards that protect civilians, and they would present obstacles to accountability for any casualties that occur.
Link to report:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2012/11/19/losing-humanity-0
So your own source is against the use of drones!
You are willing to justify having a new puppet who is a shadow of the old puppet to lead the country while the US uses drones to kill the opposition and declare they were an "imminent threat" to the US.
You can put lip stick on a pig but the Yemen leader is still a pig:
Hadi was born in 1945, in Thukain village in Abyan, a southern Yemeni governorate. He graduated in 1966 after receiving a military scholarship to study in Britain, where he also learned to speak English. Then, in 1970, he received another military scholarship to study tanks in Egypt for six years. Hadi spent the following four years in Soviet Union studying military commanding. He occupied several military posts in the southern Yemen army until 1986, when he fled to Sana’a with Ali Nasser Mohammed, president of South Yemen, after Ali Nasser's faction of the ruling Yemeni Socialist Party lost the 1986 civil war.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd_Rabbuh_Mansur_Hadi
Yemen is still under the rule of an authoritarian government with the same military power in control that was installed and RUN by the new president.
The majority of Yemen's people are living in complete poverty and Yemen has one of the highest rates of malnutrition in the world.
THE ROOT PROBLEM ISN"T TERRORISM. It is about poverty, government and multinational corporate corruption, and individual rights and freedoms. And it is directly related to the policies of the authoritarian government.
You might be able to rationalize DRONE strikes against the Yemen people by stating they were an imminent threat to the US but the truth is that these people are mainly a threat to our fucking corporate oil interests.
Do these people attack US multinational corporate interests in Yemen? Yes. I'm sure they do.
I don't justify any acts of terrorism by any party. But this is not an imminent act of terrorism against America that deserves the use of drones against any person who MIGHT BE involved in terrorists acts against corporations who are exploiting the country. More than likely they are fighting against the military dictatorship which still rules Yemen and has done much harm to them.
So basically you are condoning the military protection of US corporations; including the unfettered use of drones at the expense of US tax payers. And this is done to defend the profits of the companies willing to undercut democracy and cut deals with dictators. Companies like HALLIBURTON:
American Companies Operating in Yemen:
Tellabs, Inc.
American President Lines
Baker Hughes EHO Limited
Exxon Mobil Corporation
FedEx (Federal Express)
Halliburton (Worldwide Ltd.) Yemen Branch
Helmerich & Payne, Inc.
Hunt Oil Company
Kerr-McGee Corporation
KPMG Yemen
M-I SWACO (MIOL Yemen)
Deloitte Touche
Murphy Yemen Oil Co
Nabors Industries Ltd.
Occidental Petroleum Corporation
Pecten Yemen Masila Company
Phillips Petro Intl Corp Yemen
Procter & Gamble (Yemen) Ltd.
Schlumberger
Snyder Oil Corporation
Union Texas Petroleum Holdings, Inc.
UPS Yemen
Vintage Petroleum, Inc.
Washington Testing & Consulting Services
Yemen Exploration & Production Company
Yemen Henley Drilling Company
Source:
http://www.yemenembassy.org/economic/AmericanBusinesses.htm
Oh, and here's the new and "not authoritarian" military in action as we speak:
"The military’s latest crackdown is literally adding insult to injury. The ongoing operations do nothing more than punish the protesters for speaking out and seeking justice"
Philip Luther, Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa Programme Director
Wed, 06/02/2013
Military forces in the Yemeni capital Sana’a must not use unlawful force against dozens of injured protesters, Amnesty International said.
Since Tuesday night, the military’s Fourth Armoured Brigade has blocked access into and out of an area outside the Council of Ministers office, where protesters have been engaged in a sit-in protest to demand adequate treatment for injuries sustained during demonstrations in 2011.
Of the around 70 protesters taking part in the sit-in, more than half sustained injuries in 2011 and many have recently gone on hunger strike.
~Snip~
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/yemen-military-must-not-punish-injured-protesters-2013-02-06
If you want to play word games to justify drone attacks in Yemen so be it. But don't act like the rest of have to stick our head in the sand just because you chose to do so......
~Snip~
In October, for the third consecutive year, Obama issued a waiver allowing Yemen to receive military assistance, despite documented use of child soldiers by forces, including government troops and pro-government militias.
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/510fb4c559.html
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)You should probably actually read the stuff you're referencing. The Human Rights Watch report, for example, is about the use of fully-autonomous robotic weapons platforms that are not controlled by a human handler (as are drones). While far from endorsing the use of drones, this report details the next generations of UAV (and ground-based) platforms that would not have any human control.
These hysterical rants (and epic cut-and-paste responses) are really not terribly interesting to me. It appears to me that your ability to think for yourself is somewhat limited and so you resort to indiscriminately posting and bolding information that may or may not be related to the point.
People are almost literally pissing their pants about drones. A drone does very little that could not be accomplished by a conventional aircraft -- the principle difference is that a drone does it without risking the life of an aircrew. If Bill Clinton had the technology available in 1994, we would have certainly used drones in Bosnia. In the years after the end of the Gulf War, the United States ran more than 200,000 sorties into the Iraq No Fly Zone. Certainly drones would have been useful then.
The question to be answered -- and this really needs to be answered -- is whether the use of drones is considered a military operation subject to review by Congress under the War Powers Act or whether its a matter of national security, which makes reporting and transparency more difficult. Now most of the time, I would say that transparency is always the preferred option -- except when there are matters of national security on the table, in which case some information should not be out there in the light of day.
It's not an easy question to answer.
think
(11,641 posts)It is right in front of you. Sorry you can't see OR read.
"The term “fully autonomous weapon” refers to both out-of-the-loop weapons and those that allow a human on the loop, but that are effectively out-of-the-loop weapons because the supervision is so limited"
think
(11,641 posts)No. I want the US to stop the unfettered use of drones.
HUGE difference......
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)
think
(11,641 posts)
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)
Blanks
(4,835 posts)First of all; I don't think drones are a replacement for boots on the ground. If we aren't willing to put boots on the ground; we shouldn't be willing to wage war. It's like the agricultural model that we have; as long as your food is packaged at the grocery store - nothing had to die. Killing living creatures is an unpleasant thing (as it should be) and if you aren't willing to do it yourself; you shouldn't sanction it.
The folks who believe in the due process of law are on the right side of this. We need to all be involved in war; flying unmanned machines around shooting people is terrorism.
If Obama gets to use drones; the next war-mongering president does too. The drones are controlled by some radio waves or some kind of remote control; they can be tapped into and used on Americans. Just like the movie 'The China Syndrome' couldn't happen until 3 mile island; I don't want to hear it can't happen. We can't entertain the opinions of the 'it can't happen' people. Period
We've started a lot of unacceptable practices since September 11, 2001 and this president had condemned them as a candidate; he needs to let his actions speak louder than words. Shut down Guantanamo, get the troops out of the Middle East, get rid of the PATRIOT act and rebuild this country. He needs to quit saying one thing and doing another.
I was taught in the army that you hold ground with infantry; we have no business attacking land that we have no intention of holding. We need diplomats in order to bring peace to the world; not unmanned attack vehicles.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Yeah, I heard that from right-wingers all through the Bush administration.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)How many times did we hear -- even here on DU -- there are things Bush knows that we don't.
There are around 3 folks in politics today that I trust to tell me the truth on any matter.
Obama ain't one of them.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)My views don't change just because there is a (D) before the name.
Issues, in my opinion, far out way any loyalty to party or politician. In fact, I find blind devotion to be disturbing.
patrice
(47,992 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)honestly and rationally is bigotry and it's a PRIVILEGED assumption to assume whatever compromises you have made are the ONLY "justified" judgements, so no one who decides differently from how you make those judgements can do so with integrity; that assumption is also known as fascism.
Individual rational judgements and the responsibilities consequent to them are the essence of maturity, just because someone makes those determinations different from your own, that does not mean that they are necessarily invalid decisions.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)But keep flapping away.
plethoro
(594 posts)15 mosquito drones looking on while they lead you away for not painting your house. You are part of the problem that can no longer be reversed.
ecstatic
(32,719 posts)strategic approach to meeting military missions. If another Hitler came to power, rather than sending hundreds of thousands of troops to Germany, why not just assassinate Hitler2 and anyone who wanted to continue in his steps? In other words, I prefer the smallest action possible rather than the largest action. A drone vs. a carpet bomb, nuke... etc etc.
Again, I'd prefer that man solve their problems without having to resort to war in the first place... but if that's not possible, the missions should be as specific as possible to limit civilian casualties.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)How do you determine if a person, American or not, is guilty before you "liquidate" him/her.
Is it because the government says so? Are you willing to eschew due process because the government has determined, secretly, that a target is a "terrorist."
You are being hoodwinked.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Where have I heard that before?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)for presenting your case. I appreciate it when people put thought behind their decisions and I believe you have done that. While I don't agree, we are each entitled to our own opinion.
That being said, this paragraph is a real head scratcher.
"Fast forward to the current administration. I am an Obama supporter but he has done some things to disappoint me in the past. But the Drone program is not one of them. I'm currently back working with DoD, and members of the military. I think as has been said by others, "you don't know what the threats are until you get those secure briefings that the President gets". FTR, I don't get those briefings and don't want it to sound like I know more than any other "informed" citizen. But I'm not all up in hysteria like many of the posts I've read here that our President has abandoned the Constitution. I don't agree with Rachal Maddow, that a Drone may be coming to your neighborhood soon."
bowens43
(16,064 posts)we are not under attack by any foreign power, we are not involved in a 'war'. to justify the arbitrary murder of anyone , anywhere based on vague, unspecified paranoia is morally reprehensible.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)For many people, party affiliation follows, and is predicated on principle and conviction. For many others though, principle and conviction are simply predicated on party affiliation. While the latter is convenient, easy, and fun, it certainly doesn't advertise one's character in the best of lights.
The issue of drones being given legal authority to engage in extra-judicial killings is certainly one of the most easily illustrated examples to this, regardless of how we may rationalize it, justify it, accept it, or simply sweep it under the rug as an inconvenience.
albear
(33 posts)Sorry, but if you go out and join terrorist groups such as al-quaeda and plan to attack the U.S. and its citizens you have commited treason and you really gave up your right to American justice outside the country. You have to be taken out, period.
Cha
(297,415 posts)any shows.. but, from what I remember of him from the bush years.. I imagined his "glee" anyway.
This article from Michael Tomasky adds another piece to a level headed debate..
Obama and the Justice Department Memo
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/06/obama-and-the-justice-department-memo.html
Progressive dog
(6,915 posts)Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)with militarized police, very nearly killing two Veterans in the process, and lied repeatedly about what happened. In fact, much of the worst brutality and systematic destruction targeting the Occupy Wall Street movement, which is utterly righteous, came from "Democratic" mayors (Bloomberg currently being "independent", but remember he made his billions ON wall street and calls NYPD his private army).
7400+ Occupy members have been arrested since the formation of the movement. ZERO ZERO ZERO corrupt banksters and wall streeters have been arrested, much less faced charges for nearly forcing this country into a second great depression. The multiple hundred percentile income inequality between CEOs and US workers remains unchallenged and unchanged in this time. The illegal foreclosure engine rolls on, with Wall Street purchasing stolen homes in bulk at quarterly bank auctions. There has been utter silence from the white house regarding all of this excepting the signing of HR347, which makes it a federal crime to protest where secret service are present...and then also signed, lifetime secret service protection for Obama and W Bush.
DHS, through the iWatch program, are using police agencies as tentacles, and are increasingly militarizing them, providing armored vehicles for sheriffs departments and military-grade weaponry to PDs.
Things are looking terrible for those who wish to peaceably assemble to petition the government with grievances. Even moreso now PDs and sheriff departments are starting to roll out their own drones, and with the establishment of some 64 drone bases inside US borders.
Fuck the "targeted killing of US citizens" as "legal". Especially since PROTESTING is now being considered low-level terrorism!
"Something is terribly wrong with this country." V, "V for Vendetta".
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)http://occupyobservations.blogspot.com/2012/01/oakland-officials-caught-in-lies-about.html
The definition of "terrorist" and "traitor" is becoming very blurry and you've perhaps seen what they, systematically, did to our camps.
1,400 militarized police (that's the city's count/statement) against OccupyLA.
Cop strongly implies Occupy presence means increased terrorism threat; Federal agents at parade
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022137604
This is what DHS are doing to our police departments:
http://occupyobservations.blogspot.com/2013/01/how-lapd-are-made-into-tentacle-of-dhs.html
PDs and sheriff departments are receiving armored vehicles and military weaponry from DHS, and are working upon adding drones to their toolkit.
If none of this makes sense to you, know that Barrett Brown, sometimes spokesperson for Anonymous, is facing 100 years in prison. Jeremy Hammond has just been moved to the Solitary Housing Unit (torture). The FBI have taken political prisoners from Occupy (Cleveland, Chicago No NATO). Things are becoming worse, quite clearly.
Meet the Contractors Turning America's Police Into a Paramilitary Force
January 30, 2013 |
The national security state has an annual budget of around $1 trillion. Of that huge pile of money, large amounts go to private companies the federal government awards contracts to. Some, like Lockheed Martin or Boeing, are household names, but many of the contractors fly just under the public's radar. What follows are three companies you should know about (because some of them can learn a lot about you with their spy technologies).
http://www.alternet.org/meet-contractors-turning-americas-police-paramilitary-force?paging=off
George II
(67,782 posts).....I guess I did miss the part about how "Occupy XXXX" fits in.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)1. Occupy Wall Street are a completely righteous 1st Amendment protest movement against real, actual criminal who have affected the entire country.
2. The movement has been systematically attacked by increasingly militarized police, FBI and DHS spying, etc.
3. The white house is utterly silent.
4. Two Veterans very nearly died due to attacks by militarized police.
5. These police are looking into owning and using drones.
There's both the deadly and drones thing. Combining the two? Very very bad. And this, against peaceful protesters, whom DHS already considers a terrorist threat. The lines are becoming extremely fuzzy, and the Bill of Rights is going away...away....
George II
(67,782 posts)Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Wow, just fucking wow.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)What is your definition of supporting terrorism?
Do you think that banks that handle the money or corporations that accept investments from terrorist organizations should be droned?
Where do you draw the line?
I understand that drones have legitimate purposes, but I want to see a process in place that is fairly public and transparent for determining who is or is not a terrorist and what supporting terrorism means.
These are vague terms, and the Patriot Act did not clarify them much.
I am not happy with the fact that a few top national security and diplomatic brass get together with the president and cozily over brunch of breakfast decide who they are going to kill today.
The comaraderie is, I'm sure, delightful, but we have a tiny group of people in the executive branch huddled together as buddies deciding on the fates of men, women and children about whom they know only what some folks who may or may not be crazy as loons tell them. That just does not fly with me.
We need a process that is public and that complies with the traditions of our law since the Normans for deciding who is guilty and who is not. That's all I ask.
dembat
(47 posts)Political Junkie 41910, I too am a Democrat, and I have no problem with the drones, if an American is conspiring to commit a treasonous act with America's enemies, then I believe they should be taken out. I think what will shut up these high class morals, the President should address the country as to why he is doing what he is to keep us safe. It is better to fight them away from America.
In every war there are casualties, we cannot live with our head under the sand, and hope that our enemies are not plotting to kill us. Can you imagine the intelligence briefing that the President gets everyday, it is about what our enemies wants to do to us in our country.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)History has shown time and time again that decisions made in secret behind closed doors can only be for the best. The very idea that there are people who claim to be liberal or progressive but who question secret decisions by our leaders is morally repugnant. Furthermore, if some Middle Eastern country or perhaps a South American country were to carry out drone attacks inside America - would that make us respect them a lot more and would it not reduce tensions and decrease the likelihood of future conflicts? If some American children were killed by accident as a result of drone attacks carried out on American soil - would that not make us want all the more to willing to listen to them and find peaceful resolutions to our differences? Of course it would! Why would Middle Eastern people be any different?
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)IIRC, we have killed over 1000 people and 140 were innocent bystanders, including that unfortunate wedding party.
It is creating a lot of resentment that will likely cause locals to join any force fighting the USA. It is possible that those unintentional deaths are totally negating the gains we have from the successful killing of our enemies in that region.
There is skepticism even within the military community. I don't know how to gauge whether the net gains from the program are positive.
I don't think the drone attacks are done casually. The President supposedly reviews every attack in advance.
I don't have any sympathy for an American who is a militant who is working with people who are plotting attacks against our military or civilian. I wish we could use manned aircraft to drop the bomb; then the live pilot could use judgement while on the scene.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)With the distances involved in unmanned drone strikes, I get what you are saying about having the pilot on the scene being able to make the judgement call. A manned flight puts the pilot at risk, and this risk limits the use of military power. If you buy the War on Terror hook line and sinker this "limit" on us power is a bad thing. Alternatively if you were awake during the Bush Administration, you might feel otherwise.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)bobduca
(1,763 posts)tama
(9,137 posts)I wish for life, liberty and successfull search for happiness for all our children, regardless of nationality or other identity.
And no, I don't give a shit about your bipartisan agenda and "loyalty" that is destroying what I wish.
You are a child murderer by conscious choice, live with that. Or rather, die with that identity and reborn in empathy and compassion.
reACTIONary
(5,770 posts)bobduca
(1,763 posts)So Says The White House Spokesperson Jay Carney!
reACTIONary
(5,770 posts)bobduca
(1,763 posts)You might as well get the three-word power slogan down:
Now, everyone who is a good democrat, repeat after me, "Ethical, Legal and Wise"
reACTIONary
(5,770 posts)...and the policies that are necessary to achieve it. The facet that I don't happen to agree with you doesn't make my decision a "rubber stamp" position.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)Is there no principle you aren't willing to compromise?
If Bush were doing this, you'd be screaming bloody murder.
Fucking hypocrites, the lot of you.
I'm pretty fucking sick of Democrats like you and Obama. Evil scum.
reACTIONary
(5,770 posts)...is the right of all nations. It's one of the fundamental reasons for having a nation state. Exercising national self defense is not a "compromise" of principles.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)It is an act of war, and someday the world is going to remind us of that.
reACTIONary
(5,770 posts)... and all* acts of war violate the boarders of sovereign nations. Including defensive wars targeting organizations that are out to do us lethal harm.
What authority is it that makes this war "unlawful"? There isn't any. Over sovereign nations there is no authority or rule of law. That is what it means to be sovereign. Sovereign states exist in a "state of nature" (that is, anarchy) with respect to one another and must act according to their own judgement in their own defense.
*With the exception of civil war.
Cha
(297,415 posts)Right back at you.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)How does extrajudicial killings without due process square with that oath?
Personally, I would say it violates that oath.
George II
(67,782 posts)SheilaT
(23,156 posts)been if it had been the Soviet Union doing any of this stuff:
Drone attacks on civilians.
"Extraordinary Rendition"
Waterboarding
Detaining foreign nationals in an off shore prison for years on end, without any prospect of coming to trial.
Constant surveillance of the citizens. Refusing to allow certain citizens to board airplanes within the country, without ever giving a reason why.
There was a time when we prided ourselves in not behaving in this way. Justifying the Drones, means justifying anything and everything the government does just because they do it. The are the government. Laws no longer matter. Morality and ethics are just silly words with no meaning. It's a scary world, and I'm glad I'm getting older and I won't be around fifty years from now.
applegrove
(118,728 posts)Last edited Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:39 PM - Edit history (1)
any other deadly weapon. The laws should not be changed. Can lethal force be used on Americans who are a deadly threat to Americans inside the USA? Yes. Shoot to kill orders already take place when the perp has shown themselves to be a deadly threat to civilians or police. Treat drones the same as any other weapon.
Obviously I'm not including civilian casualties. That is wrong whenever it happens.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)The law is being waterboarded by the administration to justify extra-judicial killings...
Drone strikes promises such a clean, simple solution to a real difficult problem! Of course the the only reason it's seen as clean by the war loving US public, is that all coverage of the aftermath of the killings are voluntarily censored by US "Liberal" Media.
"Treat drones the same as any other weapon"
dgibby
(9,474 posts)will insist that everyone is entitled to have one since they're just the same as any other weapon. I'd write a book and title it, "Cry The Beloved Country", but Alan Patton (IIRC) beat me to it.
Some of the posts in this thread, including the op, scare me silly. If this is the way self-described progressives, liberals, and/or loyal Dems think, this country has really jumped the shark!
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)THey don't give Peace Prizes out for nothing.
Apophis
(1,407 posts)I believe in due process and trial by jury.
And I'm also a pacifist.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)A two tier one, surrounded tastefully with shrubbery.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,235 posts)waiting for, and gullible bleeding hearts like Maddow, are their useful tools. Notice that this has temporarily replaced gun control, and immigration reform as the top news story for many news outlets, and this will definitely blunt their momentum.
For many of the president's detractors on the left & the right, they hope to slow down the very bold agenda he's laid out. I'm hoping his SOTU addresses this topic, and puts his haters off their game once again. If there's anything this president has going for him, it's trust. People instinctively know he's not a warmonger, and feel that as a constitutional educator, he knows exactly how far he can go.
PFunk
(876 posts)as many dems who vote on principles (aka FDR dems) will probably either will not vote on go 3rd party because of this issue. In short this is NOT a winner for dems.
xiamiam
(4,906 posts)politicians come and go and have often proven themselves to be unworthy of elected office. That is their choice.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Why do you think that is? A Vast Left Wing Conspiracy? Or, could it be that the left finds a policy killing people without trial repugnant?
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)...only if the rival party does it. Doing autocratic things is bad only if the Republicans do it, but if Democrats do it, it is ok...
By that logic, these Democrats if they lived in the 60's would have supported the Vietnam War because it was a Democrats' war.
I pity such blind loyalty (demonstrates a lack of sense of the real world), unless you are directly benefiting from the doglike loyalty (in which case your opinion is as good as a corporate lobbyist to a particular issue.)
This thread reminds me of the people who support the death penalty just to punish the criminals, without any regards towards the innocent people that get executed (and there are many.)
rbrnmw
(7,160 posts)I have huge problem with drones in the right or wrong hands
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)even when the Republicans come to power - history has shown that decisions made in secret behind closed doors are ALWAYS for the best. Me thinks we have some silly worry warts here.
Furthermore could you imagine ANY American; liberal, Conservative - left-wing or right-wing - ever having ANY objection if a country or political entity from the Middle East sent drones here to America to bomb and kill people who they feel were a threat to their people? No, Of course not! That we would be ridiculous. The American people regardless of political leanings would be grateful if someone would carry out such operations inside our boarder and we would all understand that if some children get killed in the process - that was simply unfortunate - but unavoidable. No doubt if someone did this inside of America it would inspire a groundswell of goodwill that could only decrease terrorism and lead to greater mutual respect and understanding.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)as is occurring through the proliferation of drones. Use or possession of drones should be classified as a war crime (then again, it's okay for the US to waterboard suspects at will and whim, with no recourse for victims, so "war crimes" is relative).
