General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMy beef with drones is not the boogey-man "on US soil", it's Obama's Bush-Lite Doctrine
The Bush Doctrine of pre-emption has been embraced by the Obama Administration. Favoring pre-emptive drone strikes as a matter of course and policy over invasion, it a Bush-Lite pre-emption.
Obama has ordered hundreds of pre-emptive drone strikes in several countries. These acts of war are carried out wholly by the Executive and prior to any attacks on US soil. The drone wars target and kill "suspected" terrorists. Most of the strikes target suspicious activities and the identities of the dead are never known.
The vast majority of the thousand or so killed had absolutely no involvement with the attacks of September 11. Hell, most of the targets were still toddlers at the time.
The Obama (Bush-Lite) Doctrine of pre-emptive acts of war as routine is a disturbing precedent. When you add to it the constitutionally questionable assassination of US citizens abroad, it just adds another log on the fire.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Bali, the London train station, ...
It's not just "9/11"
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Please match them for me.
Robb
(39,665 posts)Drone strike in Yemen. Wanted him for USS Cole and a failed bomb plot in Detroit in 2009.
Rashid Rauf, targeted several times by drone strikes, finally (probably) killed in October. He was one of the three planners of 7/7, and probably had his hand in 7/21 and the failed British Airways bombs.
El Sayed, killed sometime in 2012, drone strike in Pak. UN pegged him for the Luxor slaughter in the 90s, as well as WTC 1993.
Adnan al Qadhi, November 2012 drone strike in Yemen, of course. Ran the Sana'a embassy attack.
There's of course more. But I've got to get more coffee. None of this is secret, they've all been in the news.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)Are you saying that killing a few (and I'll bet you no more than 100 people, total, were involved in these incidents you mention) justifies the killing of thousands of innocents? In countries that we aren't at war with? I guess we are still carpet bombing, in essence. Very Nixonian.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/03/08/drones-obama-european-parliament_n_2835515.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics
Robb
(39,665 posts)The OP characterizes the drone strikes as wholly without focus on any of the wanted characters associated with the killings listed.
It is easy to debate -- in fact, I would -- whether enough care is not being taken to protect innocents. But to say the strikes have nothing to do with any of these terrorist acts is, charitably, an uninformed position to take.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)about these people are true. We have no due process anymore, so the government can simply throw out a few names with allegations and because of the great job done during the Bush years of creating terror in the hearts of Americans against anyone with a Muslim-sounding name, they don't ask questions anymore.
I guess I'm a bit strange, I like to see proof of such serious allegations and I like the idea of charges being filed and trials being provided where the evidence is laid out for all to see. Trusting Governments with such life and death situations is a very dangerous thing to do as history has shown, over and over again.
War is profitable and they now found a way to be permanently at war. It is brilliant, we will never win, because they don't want to win.
in Iraq to capture the deck of cards bad guys.
I like Obama's way much better.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)and we don't all get what we individually want
but collectively we won't get it from Rand and the 3rd party people and the republicantealibertarians.
Alas, I can't because of my wellness program go to the Big Texan in Texas and do what I used to do prior to my wellness. But I still can want it.
Why not work for something attainable- like a bullet free America, where 35 people a day die every day ad nauseum, most of the accidental or in a rage of passion, very few from street crime, or many more from rightwing terrorists.
remember
Grant me the serenity to change what I can
accept what I cannot change
and wisdom to know the difference
one day at a time.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)or habit.
I guess since you have Rand on your mind, you can't discuss anything without invoking his name. If you had a point you were trying to make it there, it was lost in the inanity.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)when you are charged with defending the indefensible.
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)PB
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)It's about time someone said it.
US citizen or not, NO ONE should be killed by the govt. except as a necessity in a war. And even then, war should be conducted ONLY as a LAST POSSIBLE RESORT.
Normalizing war -especially when it is against a "tactic" such as the loosely defined "terrorism" (which really means any asymmetrical warfare against the US) is a disgusting crime against humanity and shameful.
Even more tragic is how the two-party system and the politics surrounding the "team first" thinking causes Rand Paul of all people to wind up speaking out on the right side of the truth and the Democratic Party squarely on the wrong side.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)When Obama makes his power grabs, most ask "How can we justify this?"
The question should be "Is this right or wrong?"
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)this is the same classic sleight of hand you are claiming others are making in your OP
People did not like IRAQ specific. Nothing more, nothing less.
It was fine by me and most others to get anyone connected with OBL and Afghanastan.
Nobody made a fuss
and I can bet 95% would have been happy if instead of Iraq Bush dropped a bunker busting bomb on OBL (though we all might have then wondered about dna proof).
But Iraq was the problem.
It NEVER was drones.
and, most people wondered at the time why Bush let OBL's family get away and not heavily interogated them, as they had or did not have direct links.
But they flew out the morning after, and it was never don.
So this statement is like 3 card monte.
It sounds good, but it was not the way it was back then.
IRAQ was the problem. NOT the war on terror. NOT the Patriot Act.
Just how Bush applied it.
Don't like Bush? Don't allow Jeb or Rand to get into office, by voting for the Democratic nominee for President come the 2016 election
morningfog
(18,115 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)
Guy Whitey Corngood
(26,501 posts)
bvar22
(39,909 posts)The bar keeps dipping lower.
RC
(25,592 posts)Iraq was never a part of the problem, as far as 9/11 was concerned. WE installed Saddam to do a job. He was doing that job as best he could, considering our interference in his country.
Neither were the wedding parties in Afghanistan ever a part of 9/11.
Janecita
(86 posts)It pisses me off when so called "progressive" justify the actions of the Obama administration. I'm extremely liberal, and sorry, but killing other people is wrong! Btw, dissent is the highest form of patriotism. If we agree with everything that Obama does (even if he's wrong) that would put us in the same category as the warmongers who salivated over the Iraq invasion.
choie
(4,111 posts)n/t
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)
Deny and Shred
(1,061 posts)that if the US has a 'right' to use pre-emptive force, than others can, too. Further, since the use of pre-emptive strikes poses a threat, others should be within the same rights to pre-emptively 'take out' US Presidents, military brass, CIA, etc if they perceive the US as a threat.
If its good for the goose, stands to reason that its good for the gander.
This is a terrible precedent to set.
onpatrol98
(1,989 posts)What if an American citizen gets on the radar of another country for being a "terrorist".
Have we set a precedent where another country would feel justified in just sending over one of these drones? And, what happens the first time one tries. And, I believe me, it will eventually be tried. Maybe not today. But, this type of progress...is just predictable. What's good for the goose and all...
I'm taking a closer look at this thing.
TommyCelt
(838 posts)NK, the only country that actually is capable and willing to wage war with us on a large scale. We're screaming foul on the idea of a pre-emptive strike under false pretenses. And then that dawning realization....
Janecita
(86 posts)Posada Carriles lives in Florida free and happy, while his victims have been dead for decades. We are lucky that Cuba doesn't have drones.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Like in NYC and China decides to "take them out"?
BO 08
(53 posts)Why wouldn't we help them?
Why couldn't they get him themselves here?
People need to stop fantasizing about ways drones are being used instead of non leathal means in places we have easy access.
That is nonesense.
Now if Taiwan was harbouring terrorists attacking china then I'd likely expect the chance china uses a drone increases.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)If you ever dropped a dollar into a jar labeled "Orphans & Widows
in an Irish Bar in the 70s, you did too.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)It seems a lot of DUers have extraordinarily short memories.
However, this comment:
is really misguided in many ways.
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)PB
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)let's have say, Jillll Steeein/Ralph Nader and watch her get about 3911 total votes all across America. And zero electoral votes.
Yeah, that's a winning ticket.
What a joke.
BTW, I am proud of Senator Elizabeth Warren, doing the right thing and voting YEA for
Brennan. Yea for Senator Warren.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)way to think...
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)my book, because we're claiming the right to bomb anyone, anywhere, on the basis of secret evidence and no public due process.
it's really horrifying.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"My beef with drones is not the boogey-man "on US soil"
...a "bogey-man," why the hell did so many people pretend that Rand Paul had a point?
Rand Paul's PR Sham
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022476740
dotymed
(5,610 posts)or US soil at executive discretion is another step toward big brother. Many democrats do not question this during a democratic presidency. This will only escalate. What happens when a republican is in office? Will the (party first) democrats then try to end this process? IMO, both parties are owned by the same corporations (too big to prosecute!)
I spent most of my life as an FDR democrat. I still agree with the democratic platform much more than the republicans but unless we actively demand a complete paradigm shift, I fear that soon (the repubs are learning) there won't be much difference in the platforms. Platforms are just words and few candidates actually do what they say they will, after the campaign.
Off subject- since Obamacare, only a few politicians are still calling for medicare for all. The insurance companies (their benefactors) will not allow it even though all other first world countries have it and their citizens would not allow companies to profit from suffering and death due to medical conditions.
It seems that in America, money and power is all that matters.
existentialist
(2,190 posts)and I had posted here and elsewhere being critical of the drones program, and also of Obama'a CIA nominee prior to Rand Paul beginning his filibuster.
I also agree that Rand Paul is not our friend.
However, I believe that Ron Wyden is our friend, and I'm not about to unfriend him or disown him or call him a DINO because he supported Paul's filibuster.
For that matter, I'm not about to unfriend or disown Barney Frank, or call Barney Frank a DINO because he joined Ron Paul in calling for an edit of the Federal Reserve System.
The Libertarians are not our friends, but where we agree on particular issues we are doing nothing that helps us, or promotes civil discourse on political issues, or helps our country or our world if we refuse on principle to work with Libertarians on particular issues on which we find ourselves in agreement.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)I parse it this way. There are basically three positions that we've seen over the last twenty years. They go like this:
1) Full military intervention, with land forces and World War II type ground invasion (W. Bush, Cheney, neocons)
2) Limited military intervention, with cruise missiles or drones, or some other US casualty-reducing technique (Clinton, Obama)
3) No military intervention; critique of imperialism; police actions for dealing with "criminal" terrorism (Code Pink; DU leftists; etc.)
Only 1) is "Bush Doctrine." Obama's drone policy looks very much like Clinton's cruise missile policy - just "easier" and "quicker" to implement (you don't have to maneuver warships for missile launches, etc.).
Now, I recognize that your issue is pre-emption. I suppose the argument could be made that Clinton's cruise missile policy was largely responsive (or reactive) and punitive, rather than proactive and preventive, in theory. In this sense, Obama's policy can be seen as a mixture of 1) and 2), since we'd have to add another dimension of reactive/proactive and punitive/preventive, something like this:
1a) Full military intervention, with land forces and World War II type ground invasion (Proactive/Preventive)
(W. Bush, Cheney, neocons)
1b) Full military intervention, with land forces and World War II type ground invasion (Reactive/Punitive) (FDR, Truman)
2a) Limited military intervention, with cruise missiles or drones, or some other US casualty-reducing technique (Proactive/Preventive)(Obama)
2) Limited military intervention, with cruise missiles or drones, or some other US casualty-reducing technique (Reactive/Punitive) (Clinton)
3) No military intervention; critique of imperialism; police actions for dealing with "criminal" terrorism (Code Pink; DU leftists; etc.)
So, at best, the drone strikes are a departure from Clinton policy because they are positioned as proactive and preventive. At best. That's actually a very thin thread indeed, since Clinton himself suggested that he would "get" OBL and his people if he could in a proactive way, and it's not clear that Obama's policy departs from that basic position. So I simply disagree with you that what we're seeing is an extension of the Bush Doctrine, and you certainly haven't proved that in any substantial way. What we see is much closer to a Clinton Doctrine approach, within the context of post World War II American foreign policy. Needless to say, that context does not allow for option 3). That's the real cause for disappointment. Option 3) remains as distant a goal as ever. We've simply shifted to slightly modified version of Clinton's cruise missile policy, playing the same old foreign policy game of nudging between position 1) and position 2).
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Why did we install dictators like Saddam Hussein, the Shah of Iraq not to mention all over South America? Why are we still supporting Dictators, with arms and money such as Karamov of Uzbekistan (who makes SH look like a kitty cat)?
When will Americans face up to the fact that our foreign policies of supporting the most brutal leaders against the will of their people, of helping them to kill their own people, of stealing their resources, is simply wrong?
You spent a lot of time justifying a democrat's actions, but the fact is around the world no one cares anymore who is in power in the US. We are viewed as the biggest threat to world peace, regardless. And if you can't see why, then all I can say is I suppose human nature hasn't changed throughout history. Empires never see themselves as doing anything wrong. So we have not evolved at all.
We are wrong, our policies are wrong. A few people then react to those policies in the wrong way and we act all innocent as if we are just poor victims who never did anything to make anyone hate us.
Check out some of the photos over the past several decades of dead children and grieving mothers and fathers around the world due to our actions and try to see them from a pov outside of this country.
The bottom line is there are no excuses for what is going on and in a way, we are getting the government we deserve. It was inevitable that sooner or later our government would bring those policies home and use them against Americans. History shows this to be the pattern.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)I identified a series of positions. My claim is simple:
Obama's policy is a slightly modified version of Clinton's cruise missile policy, not an extension of Bush's policies.
That's the claim. You can take it or leave it, or argue against it or whatever, but please don't assign more claims to me than that. Indeed, I say very clearly in my post that I prefer position 3), which is what you appear to be arguing for here. Here's what I said, in plain English:
Needless to say, that context does not allow for option 3). That's the real cause for disappointment. Option 3) remains as distant a goal as ever.
Perhaps this was difficult for you to interpret, so I'll be even more clear: position 3) is the position I prefer. It is the goal, and the only moral goal. It is the correct position.
Better?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)However, the Unitary Executive policy, giving the President alone the right to decide who should targeted IS a Bush policy.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)He did not seek a vote or permission. Not from Congress, and not from the courts.
Just saying. This stuff isn't new. The only difference is that Clinton wouldn't say he was targeting an individual, but a "network." These are precious distinctions indeed.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)...so, the precedent has also existed for quite some time. The only difference is the use of drones which originated under Bush and has continued under the current President.
As far as killing US citizens abroad, if they're actively involved in attacking US facilities and killing Americans, and/or planning to do so, so be it. I have absolutely no sympathy for them.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)Anyone that married to a political party or its leadership to the point where they excuse this kind of policy is a fanatic and propagandist, and never be taken seriously on any discussion forum. But what should be taken seriously is the fact that those who excuse policies like this are supposedly speaking for our party's leadership. Republicans are less of a threat because most of them are in our own party today.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)The Red/Blue battles are a Kabuki production for the citizenry at this point.
The two parties take turns enacting the same corporate/neocon/police state agenda. We are merely divided into our Red and Blue teams so that we will circle our wagons for our respective teams and ensure for them that we will never unite against what they are doing to all of us.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)
90-percent
(6,829 posts)We can expect terrorist BLOWBACK for generations to come thanks to our behavior mostly in the middle east since we invaded Iraq in 2003.
Our charming contractors like Blackwater ran amok for about five years in Iraq with a "license to kill all suspected ragheads".
Hopefully if we get just a few more of our constitutional rights declared inoperative our government will be able to protect us from terrorists like Reagan's Star Wars protected us from all those nukes the Ruskies liked to fire at our HOMELAND back in those Cold War days.
-90% Jimmy,
so thankful my tax dollars bought the drones to exterminate those middle eastern young people that would probably have grown up to be terrorists, anyway.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)Drones are just as much a psychological weapon as they are physical.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)He has escalated the corporate, neocon, police/surveillance state. The wealth gap is increasing, not decreasing. The murder in our name continues. And the police state is growing at an alarming rate.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Sounds like hyperbole to cover for being duped by a demagogue.
OP: "My beef with drones is not the boogey-man 'on US soil'"
I mean, how many people kept fanning that bullshit claim?
Rand Paul's PR Sham
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022476740
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)If anything he's adding fuel to the fire.
Andy Stanton
(264 posts)cannot be treated the same way you deal with a warlike state.
To insist on Congressional approval for every action by the government against stateless terrorists is unrealistic. By the time Congress approved, the target would be long gone. Also what do you think would happen if Obama went to Congress with requests for Congressional approval? Boehner and Cantor would NEVER cooperate, no matter how strong the evidence of terrorism was.
think
(11,641 posts)As well as a trial by a jury by your peers.
Yet as a nation we've created laws to guide the conduct of law enforcement and protect the rights of Americans. America prides itself in it's efforts to defend the American people's freedoms and civil liberties. We consider ourselves a model for the world in regards to respecting human dignity and human rights.
One should expect the same kind of lofty idealism, due diligence, and oversight before our soldiers arbitrarily kill someone in a third world country who may be or NOT be a terrorist. More than more likely many who have been dubbed "terrorists" are actually enemy soldiers who are fighting against the dictators we prop up in the name of securing their oil and other resources for our multinational corporations.
Congressional approval is one form of oversight but there others that could be used to ensure that any measure of last resort such as killing anyone anywhere in the world is done because their is an immediate threat to America. And it should be to protect against threats to America and Americans NOT our corporate oil and other multinational resource exploiting endeavors in the countries we occupy.
Yes, you can name actual terrorists killed in drone strikes. But one can also list hundreds of innocent men women and children who were murdered in an over zealous effort to protect our oil and our multinational corporate whores who mar America's democratic image.
When other countries start justifying summary executions in their satellite colony nations will we be as nonchalant to their actions as we are about our own?.....
think
(11,641 posts)matters little in comparison to the corporate whores behind the curtain who pull the real strings.....
Folks, we have a winner!
elias7
(4,012 posts)It is the most substantive post in an otherwise uninteresting thread...
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)Option #4 send suspects to the Hague,, But some people just want to get their war on.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)"police actions for dealing with 'criminal" terrorism'" is meant to convey exactly what you suggest. Sorry if I was unclear there. Option 3) contains your Option 4).
I certainly don't want to "get my war on," so I do hope you were referring to somebody else.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)No I was referring to you. Unless you belong to Code Pink or are a leftist.. You worded your repley to have war as the only, Worthy Option.
3) No military intervention; critique of imperialism; police actions for dealing with "criminal" terrorism (Code Pink; DU leftists; etc.)
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Indeed, I explicitly supported position 3) myself in the original post. Maybe you didn't read that far down, so here it is:
Needless to say, that context does not allow for option 3). That's the real cause for disappointment. Option 3) remains as distant a goal as ever.
Perhaps this was difficult for you to interpret, so I'll be even more clear: position 3) is the position I prefer. It is the goal, and the only moral goal. It is the correct position.
Better?
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)Kolesar
(31,182 posts)elias7
(4,012 posts)And the discussion is like being in a sports pub. Lacks any sense of civil discussion, laden with snark and seeming booze, no real chance anyone would ever change their opinion regardless of new information, logical reasoning or a reframing of the argument into another valid model.
Go Packers!
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)They have an excuse!
Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)I've been there, done that, and won't go down that route again.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)The boogey man in this case is the prospect of drone strikes on US soil, not an enemy.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)[font size=3]“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” ---Senator Obama, 12-20-2007[/font]
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Somalia and Yemen had their invasion troops all suited up and ready to roll....
crossing the oceans would have been a small problem,
but we couldn't afford to take the chance.
You saw what happened when we failed to stop the Communists Hordes in Asia.
We lost California, just like "they" said we would.
Thank gawd these REEL MACHO MEN are manning the walls so I can enjoy my freedoms!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)they found capitalism. They look like they may be the new imperial threat because they are capitalists not because they are communists.
It's martini time here.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)That's the same guy who promised to defend Social Security.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Their impact is minimal (which, ironically, is used in their defense as "killing fewer"
and counter productive in that they produce more terrorists than they allegedly kill. But, with every announcement of allegedly dead terrorists it shows that we are "doing something".....however stupid, immoral, and self-defeating it is.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)And need to be treated as such by the countries targeted. It's no accident that they don't employ them in France or England, where there are plenty of proto-terrorists. Countries that could actually do something about those strikes. No, in those places (and even in our own), police work and arrest are enough.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts) idwiyo
(5,113 posts)
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Instead of wasting billions of dollars and countless lives invading and occupying the country.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction or the means or intention of using them in the US, right? Why proffer the bush framing?
DCBob
(24,689 posts)regardless of the wmd issue. You do recall the invasion of Kuwait? However, I still think we probably could have continued to contain him with the no-fly zones, santions, inspections, etc but if the decision was he had to be taken out then why not use a drone instead of invading?
BTW, I was totally against going to war with Iraq. I attended Iraq war protests in DC, one before and two after it started.
