Sensible Woodchucks understand drone warfare.

[KG]

do try to keep up, all you obama-bashers with your agendas

[idwiyo]

1. K&R not sure if I should laugh or cry

[Demeter]

9. I'm right next to the Penguin

shoulder to shoulder, banging my head, too.

[idwiyo]

12. So am I...

[progressoid]

2. Sensible Woodchuck reads the New Republic.

[KG]

4. well, certainly not 'The Nation'

[nashville_brook]

54. he's drooling over the Ezra Klein profile

[bhikkhu]

3. Well, if it leads to people taking elections seriously, and showing up to vote

then that's one welcome consequence.

I think the last few repugs who ran weren't especially competent or trusted, but too many people had the attitude that it didn't matter much.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

6. Does it matter if people come out to vote and only vote in a Democrat

only to have them make unsound policy choices; allowing assassinations I mean targeted killing to continue?

What happens when you get a Dem that enjoys (don't tell me it will never happen) this power? Are they any better than "repugs who ran but weren't especially competent or trusted?"

Some powers should never be let out of Pandora's box or crafted into usability through an unseen legal brief. Some things are just wrong from their inception.

[Puzzledtraveller]

8. Apparently not anymore, it's all about my team your team

and also the ever so powerful ego that resists accepting when they are wrong on a matter.

[geek tragedy]

10. Avoiding land wars that kill hundreds of thousands of people

is probably a bigger deal to most than drone attacks on Pakistani militants.

The drone issue is a very tiny one to the great majority of voters. Not even a top 10 issue for most liberals (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, taxing the rich, climate change, education, labor rights, fair elections/voting rights, avoiding land wars in Asia, GLBTQ rights, gender equality, job creation, infrastructure, environmental conservation etc)

[idwiyo]

14. How do we KNOW those are "militants"? Should I just take it on "faith" alone?

How many people were and are wrongfully convicted even with all that state of the art evidence?
Why the hell am I told again and again that I must trust someone else's word and judgement without any chance to examine the evidence to appeal the conviction?

This is why I am strictly against death penalty. Doesn't matter how compelling the evidence, there is always a chance it was faked, contaminated, or ignored in order to get desired outcome. In this case it's even worse. I told to believe that evidence presented to your president is perfect, there is no chance it was obtained under torture, that there is no chance he will make a wrong decision and its better to kill few of them over there (including innocent bystanders). This is absolutely sick and there is no justification for these type of abuse of power.

[geek tragedy]

17. Armed conflict is going to entail loss of civilian life.

Which is why it should be entered into a lot less frequently and with much shorter durations than the US does, including under Obama.

[GoneFishin]

25. Particularly when everyone in the decision chain ...

stands to profit in some manner or another by demonstrating that the drone is effective. In my opinion it's as if they have multi-million dollar hammers, and they are under a lot of pressure to find some nails to pound with them.

[99th_Monkey]

36. Very good analogy. Those million $ hammers just GOT to be used. ~nt

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

18. You do understand that the USA has to declare war before using

the machine of war? Right?

The US Congress has not declared war on Pakistan. The US congress has not declared war since WWII, and that is not only ill-serving, but also unconstitutional and shows neglect in their role as shepherds of the law.

So, no. The drone issue isn't teeny-tiny. It is murder. It is very large in the context of We the People not holding our elected officials responsible, but what you have listed is also important. What you may not want to admit is that when We the People lay down our right to demand our elected officials act responsibly then our elected will tend not to act responsibly; to the harm of We the People.

One cannot pick and choose what is important and what is less so when the lesser evil may appear greater in time.

[geek tragedy]

19. I do understand that's a theory amongst some academics that's never

been accepted by any legal authority in the US. Just like the Tenthers have their own theory about what the constitution requires.

The closest thing to that is the War Powers act, but the AUMF of 2001 authorizes military action against AQ and the Taliban.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

27. Is outright murder also a theory amongst some academics?

Some people will do/say anything for the good of the home team. (See cartoon at top)

Also the AUMF is a resolution specifying the use of force against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001.
OBL is dead, my friend.

One could argue that the AUMF is now a rubber stamp to use deadly force whenever and wherever the USA wants to act unilaterally in either republican or Democratic form.

How many civilians people have died through AUMF drone attacks? Does that make the USA the new OBL?


Consider what legacy the good old USA leaves by using this now outdated law, passed during the Dubya Admin no less, as an excuse for assassinations and unfortunate collateral damage (killing of civilians).

We can't always be in a constant state of war against whomever we choose.

[geek tragedy]

30. The AUMF authorizes force against:

all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he (the President) determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Interpreting that language to include the remnants of the Taliban and AQ that scurried over the border to Pakistan like cockroaches does not require a great deal of legal skill.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

34. So you agree with a Bush era law?

Interpreting that language could mean perpetual war against anybody the acting President of that time has an axe to grind with in the future. Are you prepared for that?

[geek tragedy]

35. One does not to agree with a law to recognize it is the law. nt

[morningfog]

70. None of the targets in Yemen, Somalia, or even Pakistan in many years

"planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons"

Many of our "targets" were babies in 2001.

You are also confusing the AQ of Pakistan with the AQ in Afghanistan. Not to mention AQ in Yemen and Somalia.

[geek tragedy]

71. AQ did. Trying to define AQ is almost a fool's errand.

However, the statute explicitly commits such determinations to the sole discretion of the President.

It probably should not have done so, but it did.

[morningfog]

72. It is a farce. A literal reading of the clause you cited shows the current President is abusing his

discretion.

[geek tragedy]

73. The statute says that it applies to any organizations etc "he determines"

participated or helped those participating in the attacks.

The language is absolute. His discretion. No one elses. Complete delegation of any and all judgment calls.

And if one is fighting an organization, by definition one is fighting its members.

[morningfog]

74. THe organization is not monolithic. Like I said, the statute may give discretion, but he

has abused it with his tortured interpretation. The targets we are hitting in Pakistan have no affiliation with the AQ that hit us on 9-11. Absolutely none. The same goes with those in Yemen and Somalia.

[geek tragedy]

75. As I said, defining AQ is a fool's errand.

I can certainly respect your opinion, and perhaps would even agree with it.

But, if you slap the AQ franchise on yourself, you're pretty much guaranteeing that the US is going to treat you like an armed enemy. And it's not such a distortion on the Preznit's part that it runs afoul of the excessively broad latitude the statute grants him.

The AUMF of 2001 is a really shitty piece of legislation, made shittier by the lack of a sunset provision.

[morningfog]

76. In that case, the President is the quintessential fool.

[geek tragedy]

77. Not going to disagree too loudly on that one. nt

[Martin Eden]

28. That "war" is expanding into other countries

Rather than eradicate the plague of terrorism, our actions can have the effect of metastisizing the disease and spreading it.

For every mole that we whack, how many more are recruitd?

Our military/intelligence establishment is better at body counts than calculating the net effect of America being perceived as a violator of international law and our own declared principles of human rights and justice. Not only does this invoke rage within the countries of our targeted killings, if progressives at home are outraged at a Democratic president just think how we're perceived by our erstwhile allies around the globe.

[geek tragedy]

29. That's a completely valid and compelling policy critique.

But it is not a legal critique.

[Martin Eden]

41. I'll take that a step further:

It's a compelling argument for refining and codifying the law as to what the executive branch (and military/intelligence establishment) can and can't do without specific judicial authorization or Congressional declaration of war.

You will likely find some disagreement among students of the law regarding the constitutionality of extrajudicial executions. There is a gray area for interpretation -- and where that exists, the wielders of power will push the envelope as far as they dare.

The danger here goes beyond the repurcussions of unwise foreign policy; our rights as citizens are at risk of serious erosion.

[geek tragedy]

43. The best thing that could happen would be for Congress to step in and provide

constraints. It's their obligation, and their failure to do so has created a vacuum in which the Executive operates without institutional constraints.

[TheKentuckian]

51. What the hell are we doing killing "insurgents" that had no part or association with our attackers?

What are we doing fighting a civil war in Yemen, doing dirty fucker's dirty work in exchange for cooperation?

How is every male between their teens and middle age a "combatant"?

There has ALREADY been significant mission creep and it is past time to reel it in and create real benchmarks that are achievable rather than fairy tales.

[geek tragedy]

52. No argument from me. nt

[bvar22]

32. False Dilemma Fallacy.

A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and/or-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option. The options may be a position that is between two extremes (such as when there are shades of grey) or may be completely different alternatives. The opposite of this fallacy is argument to moderation.

False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice (such as, in some contexts, the assertion that "if you are not with us, you are against us&quot . But the fallacy can also arise simply by accidental omission of additional options rather than by deliberate deception."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

There ARE many options and alternatives between:

1)A Land War that kills Hundreds of Thousands
OR
2)Secret Assassination Drones

There are even some options that don't kill anybody.

[geek tragedy]

33. I agree--there are many alternatives.

The point I was making is that there are important differences separate from and more significant than the similarities between Bush and Obama.

[thetonka]

31. People need to realize that the Democrats do NOT have support

In the last two elections people pay attention to the electoral college and seem to get a sense of confidence that the Democrats will remain in the White House. Look at the popular vote, in 2008 Obama had a 7% popular vote lead over McCain, in 2012 it was less than 4% over Romney. Now more importantly is the turn out. In this last election the turn out was less than 60%. With such a small margin of victory with 40% of the people not even bothering to vote there is NO justification for confidence.

It wouldn't take much for the Democrats to nominate a less than stellar candidate and the Republicans to nominate a stellar candidate. If that happens there likely will be a Republican in the White House.

This has been my point all along on many powers people want to give the White House. It's all fine if the person in the White House is someone you trust and supports your goals, but if that person is not they will still have those powers.

[JDPriestly]

38. And while we are at it, before I would vote for her, Hillary Clinton would

have to prove to me that she would not that she would not abuse this power.

I saw a video of a meeting between the ladies in Code Pink and Hillary Clinton prior to the Iraq War. The Code Pink ladies had returned from a visit to Iraq and told her what they saw and tried to persuade Hillary Clinton not to support the war.

Hillary refused Code Pink's request. Not only did she refuse it, but she was very rude in her refusal.

That video just sticks in my mind. I'm not sure she could be trusted with controlling drones and these kinds of potentially vindictive strikes. She has quite a temper I think.

[bvar22]

45. Hillary has never recanted, reframed, or apologized for her vote to Invade Iraq.

She stands BY her vote,
and still insists that Invading Iraq was the right thing to do.

I actually admire her posture in standing by her vote.
Those who later cried Crocodile Tears and complained that Bush Fooled Me completely lost my respect.

[stillcool]

57. the only thing new..

Is the delivery...ease of use. Faster, cleaner, better. Morality behind assassinations has never been an issue. We've been doing it for more than half a century. Thirdworldtraveler has some great articles on the subject.

[Amonester]

61. We've been doing it for more than two centuries, actually.

Starting from day 1 with the Great American Native Nations.

To state otherwise is to refuse to face reality.

[rhett o rick]

50. Let me get this straight. You think that drone killing who ever the president decides is ok if

it leads to more people voting?

[bhikkhu]

56. I think its important to look on the bright side

...and what makes anyone think that some recent precedent determines anyone's actions? Recall the last guy - what was the precedent for torture? Who thought that was legal? Who could do anything about it? Elect the wrong guy for the wrong reasons and it doesn't matter.

So, a bit of sarcasm in the "bright side" comment, but really I do think that people need to take their votes and the office more seriously.

[bvar22]

66. Are you advocating for a 3rd Party?

That is not allowed on DU.

[bhikkhu]

67. No

I think I'm supporting the president's position, or at least taking a perspective of understanding on it.

on edit - looking at how that might have been misunderstood, there was a great deal of talk in the RW camp in 98-99 about how a "technocrat" was not who we needed for a president, as they hated Clinton's competence as much as any other aspect. They wanted a regular guy; he didn't even have to know what was going on or be qualified, as long as he understood who he worked for (corporate profits, basically). And the RW media hammered on the government incompetence, hammered on corruption, and hammered on the "government is the problem" memes so much that people bought the idea you could elect any schmuck and we'd all be fine, as long as he left business interests alone. Which is how we got 8 years of * incompetence in the WH, and eventually one of the stupidest congresses in history.

If there is something that makes people take government seriously (and the state and congressional level are most important currently), something that makes people sit up and deliberately elect people who are competent and serious about good government, then that's a good thing.

[bvar22]

68. Then WHO should we have voted for if we conscientiously oppose...

....the President having secret Kill Lists and Assassination Drones?

[bhikkhu]

69. Obama

...as it all derives directly from the original war authorization, and Obama is the only candidate who ran in 2012 who is seriously working toward ending the wars

[awoke_in_2003]

5. K&R. nt

[MadHound]

7. Love Tom Tomorrow,

He has way of laying it all out there in a great, humorous manner.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

21. agree. he is a national treasure

[Bernardo de La Paz]

11. Called "extra-judicial killings". We're properly against it when Assad's militias do it in Syria. nt

[idwiyo]

16. Stupid Assad, he should call people on his kill list "Enemies of US and Freedom Everywhere, a.k.a

Radical Islamic Terrorists. There, problem solved.

[xchrom]

13. Du rec. Nt

[Zorra]

15. K&R

[Demo_Chris]

20. kick and rec!@

[arthritisR_US]

22. Sums it up nicely. n/t

[eggplant]

23. Hasn't the CIA done this for decades?

Disappear individual unfriendlies, I mean.

[JDPriestly]

39. It has been illegal so they certainly have not been open about it, but there have been

some terribly odd coincidences. Plane crashes of people with whom the CIA had a problem for example.

[eggplant]

42. So I guess the real difference here is that we announce when we successfully blow someone up.

It's obviously bad form to tell the world that you are assassinating people.

Sigh.

[bvar22]

46. No. The difference IS that one is codified as National Policy...

...along with supportive notes from friendly lawyers stating that it is A-OK,

...and the other is a surreptitious activity,
KNOWN to be illegal, but perpetrated anyway by Above-the-Law Undercover Operatives who make no excuses for their behavior,
but hide behind their anonymity and the rationalization that their evil deeds will somehow benefit mankind.
In the final analysis, that has rarely been the case.

[eggplant]

49. Fair point. n/t

[Amonester]

62. Who A-OK'ed the American Natives' genocide?

Or was that one justified?

And the others too?

[bvar22]

63. After the Union Army finished with the The South,

...the US Government turned their army West, and waged a War of Ethnic Cleansing against the Native Americans.
I don't know if they bothered getting a note from their lawyer,
but, to my knowledge, nobody objected to the extermination of the Native Americans, so no phony Moral or Legal Rationalization was needed at that time.

That would be an excellent topic for somebody's Term Paper or Thesis!


I've always found it sadly ironic that the very same army that "Freed the Black Man",
turned West, and exterminated the "Red Man".
That realization forces one to look deeper, until reaching the point
of commonality, which is:
"It is ALWAYS about the Damned Money"!



[font size=2 color=red]

[Amonester]

65. Yep. Capitalist expansion, through resource and labor exploitation.

As old as the world we know.

Except for perhaps a few communities in Tibet, and fading away.

[WillyT]

24. HUGE K & R !!!

[limpyhobbler]

26. du rec.

[Fire Walk With Me]

37. Goodness, but I do love Tom Tomorrow.

[leftstreet]

40. DURec

[SaveOurDemocracy]

44. K&R!!

Once again ~~~~~~~~>

[woo me with science]

47. K&R

[WillyT]

48. And Another...

[TheKentuckian]

53. Yup, yup

[Douglas Carpenter]

55. Britney's words of wisdom are as important now as they were then

[bvar22]

64. Oh MAN...

..that is SOOOOO embarrassing.
I've got to figure out how to get THAT in my sig line!

[raouldukelives]

58. K&R nt

[LWolf]

59. It's good to see the sensible woodchuck

again.

He always makes such sense.

[libodem]

60. Headbanging it is!!!