America has decided it has the right to kill anyone anywhere, any time.

[The Northerner]

So claims Gary Kamiya who writes for Salon. Kamiya contends that if in 2000 the U.S. president had said the government would be using drones to track and kill people all over the world the uproar would have been enormous.

Kamiya does not give any grounds for saying that there would be an uproar. Perhaps there would, the first uproar against George W Bush who was elected in November of 2000. But reaction to what Obama does even when his use of drones goes much beyond that of Bush is different.

According to an article in the Washington Post fully 77 per cent of Liberal Democrats support Obama's use of drones. 53 per cent of Liberal Democrats also support keeping Guantanamo Bay open even though it was a key plank in Obama's election platform to close it down. Outrage about these matters is abandoned by liberals and left to libertarian Tea Party conservatives such as Ron Paul!

Kamiya thinks that the drone use started in Afghanistan and the border areas of Pakistan but then once that precedent was established drone use spread far afield to Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, and Libya. Kamiya thinks the Afghan war was justified. I think he is dead wrong on that but will let it pass. He argues the fanciful case that removing the Taliban was a clear case of self-defense. However he also holds that the war turned out not to be wise because the costs particularly for Americans outweigh the benefits.

Read more: http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/11566900-american-has-decided-it-has-the-right-to-kill-anyone-anywhere-any-time

[sinkingfeeling]

1. Pretty much. It's now become like, "Who's gonna stop us?"

[bvar22]

2. America has decided it has the right to kill anyone anywhere, any time...

...without even telling us WHY.

The White House has "assumed" that authority, and claimed it can do so on a basis of "suspicion",
and does NOT have to reveal what information that "suspicion" is based on.

Well, throw me back to the Pre-Magna Carta Dark Ages!

There ARE those who are outraged.
I am one.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[sabrina 1]

8. I was outraged when Bush was doing it and I'm still outraged, so who are all these Democrats

who, airc, were outraged also when Bush was doing it and now have changed their minds?

[LooseWilly]

28. Who are the democrats? Loyalists. Apologists. Fanatics. Etc.

You know it. I know it. I'm just willing to take the "risk" of saying it "out loud". Killing US citizens outside of a theater of war without any recourse to the courts or a jury because of things that it has been alleged that said US citizen has said... not to mention the causation of the collateral deaths of anyone who happened to be in the same building/the same market/on the same block ... I'm pretty sure that's not "Constitutional".

On the other hand, Guantanamo, wireless wiretapping, NSA data mining/sifting through e-mails... the Constitution is only applicable for those who have the funds to hire a lawyer and/or buy a Congressperson. Let's, again, just be honest for a second.

Time to embrace the existentialist writers... because imperialism involves an assload of absurd rationalizations. I recommend Beckett...

[indepat]

10. Great powers, and especially superpowers, do whatever is necessary to protect their

vital interests. Moreover, the number of vital interests to be protected expand exponentially when global hegemony is being exerted. Therefore, only a dummy would fail to realize the likely consequences of messing with our tutu.

[onenote]

3. Wouldn't a fairer comparison be to what the reaction would have been in late 2001, not 2000?

Like it or not, September 11, 2001 changed a lot of things, including how the American public feels about actions such as drone attacks on those perceived to be a threat to Americans.

And its a bit of hyperbole to say that the fact that most Americans aren't outraged at the way drones are being used today means that "America has decided that it has the right to kill anyone anywhere, any time." That makes it sound as if the American government and the American people have decided that it would be okay for a drone to be used to kill someone because we don't like the color of his socks or because someone failed to stop for a red light. That isn't the case and the author of the hyperbole knows it, of course.

[sabrina 1]

9. Yes, go back to those years when Bush was president and most Democrats were opposed to

killing people anywhere anytime. What has changed according to this article, is that now Democrats support what they used to oppose.

I still oppose every wrong policy instituted by Bush, including the killing of people in foreign nations for no good reason. So who are all these Democrats who have changed their minds? Maybe they are talking to DLCers, who always were warmongers, but traditional Democrats have always and still do oppose these policies.

[onenote]

12. More hyperbole. Most Democrats (and most Americans) don't support "killing people anywhere anytime."

When the Afghan War started it had broad support from the American people, Democrats and Republicans alike. I doubt highly that most people were concerned one way or another about the tactics by which the war was fought. Had drones been used to take out Taliban leaders at that time, I have no reason to believe that such action would have been met with opposition from the majority of Americans, including the majority of "traditional" Democrats.

The Iraq war was met with much more opposition, but that opposition was not based on the tactics by which the war was fought -- it was based on disagreement over the necessity and wisdom of going to war against Iraq.

In short, I do not know of any time since September 2001 when Democrats were opposed to the use of drones as a tactical weapon against those identified by the military (rightly or wrongly) as legitimate targets. And I don't know of any Democrats today that are in favor of the use of drones as a weapon against "anyone anywhere anytime."

[sabrina 1]

14. Hyberbole? I guess you weren't around when Bush's use of drones was first revealed.

I did not support the Afghanistan invasion, nor did many Democrats who saw it for what it was.

And Democrats across the board opposed the killing of US Citizens by order of the President, so if they are okay with that now, that sure is a huge change in their position. Although I think that is not true, which is why I wonder who they are polling.

[TheMadMonk]

23. Difference is: He may be a bastard, but he's OUR bastard.

Excusing the inexcusable becomes very easy when it's one of your own doing it, because doing otherwise runs a very real risk of having to question one's OWN motives.

[banned from Kos]

4. We've been doing it for at least 50 years.

They just want the cloak of legitimacy now.

[treestar]

5. When it comes right down to it, doesn't every country?

And we do not say anyone, anywhere, it's got to be someone at least thought to be planning attacks.

[gratuitous]

6. I keep trying

But I just can't seem to trim my ideals to fit the fashion. I keep getting hung up on that quaint old document, and thinking that things like due process, trial, presentation of evidence and the right to face one's accusers really matter. I know it's not "in" to think that way, and all the Best People like, totally endorse raining down sudden death from the sky on very, very bad persons. The President croons a mean tune, but I don't think that confers infallibility on him, you know? I also have this notion that if human rights can be denied to one person - even someone that everyone agrees is really, really bad - it may be that one day they'll be denied to me.

[hack89]

15. So lets talk due process

when an American citizen removes himself from our jurisdiction, joins a group dedicated to waging war against America and its citizens, and is in an area where the host country is unable or unwilling to arrest him for us, what remedy is left?

How do we exercise due process in the Pakistani Tribal Areas, for example?

And here is a more subtle variation - what if our intended target is not an American but a known foreign terrorist. But an American is riding in the car as a body guard. Do we not shoot to protect the American? Or do we shoot and consider him unlucky?

[gratuitous]

16. Your premise seems . . . flawed

Sorry, I don't think one person can wage war against America and its citizens. And no matter how big the group is, they're hardly an existential threat to our country. We're supposed to be the law-abiding good guys, the nation of laws not men.

Joining and strengthening international law enforcement agencies, along with following, respecting and holding our country accountable to its own Constitution and treaties would go a long way toward getting cooperation from other countries when it comes to apprehending "known" terrorists. Summary execution of persons riding in cars strikes me as being very much against the ideals the United States pretends to uphold, and encourages lawlessness by others. When our country doesn't follow the law, we don't have any credibility to complain about others using our own tactics against us.

[hack89]

17. Individuals join groups that wage war

There are places in the world that are lawless - places where there is no government power. Pakistani Tribal Areas, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen for example. There is no international law enforcement there.

[TheMadMonk]

27. So declare war honestly and bring the rule of law to those places.

Killing people at random (essentially) solves nothing, but does piss people off and damned near guarantees hatred in return and an excuse to do more of the same.

Which EXCUSE, it would appear that the PTBs in the US want, given how many fucking times over the past decade the US has taken the path of escallation rather than resolution.

[hack89]

30. We did

That's what the AUMF did.

I don't think invading Pakistan is going to make things better. Killing terrorists,on the other hand, will.

[TheMadMonk]

34. So Congress passed a resolution for war while we weren't looking?

No what will make things better is putting an end to pillaging the planet for profit.

Putting an end to telling the rest of the world to take it up the arse because it's 'merika's right to take anything it wants, whenever it wants.

[hack89]

36. I was paying attention. nt

[sabrina 1]

24. Do we need to see charges before going off to some other country and killing someone?

That would be a minimum expectation, Constitutionally at the very least, imo.

And how about killing a teenager without charges? Is that in any way, Constitutional? If so, I wish someone would point out where in the Constitution this is covered.

[TheMadMonk]

25. RULE OF LAW! Anthing else is ANARCHY, and I have the right...

...to kill you, because you dissed my dog.

[hack89]

26. There are places in the world where there is no law. nt

[TheMadMonk]

29. AND? In your humble opinion the solution is to extend lawlessness...

to the rest of the world.

Behaving as they do, makes you not one fucking whit better than them.

[quinnox]

7. As Kings of the world, America has decided to play tin pot dictator

Any time we kill folks it is in the name of goodness and a noble thing to do in the name of justice. If some innocents get in the way, well then, we are sorry but these things happen. Since we are the good guys we don't have to worry about being morally wrong. Anyone or any country who opposes our will is evil and very likely a terrorist supporting nation.

USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!

[YellowRubberDuckie]

11. Here's the thing...

They always have. It's just harder to keep it quiet in the days of the internet.

[sad sally]

13. It used to be that liberal Democrats defended the right to first be charged with a crime,

then to be afforded legal representation, then be tried and first be found guilty before being executed.

Now, it seems as long as our President has said that an American(s) he's ordered to be assassinated by drones are guilty of "something," the majority of Democrats and an even larger percentage of Republicans say it's okay - no questions asked, no need to know why.

[quaker bill]

18. I am so over it with drones

We kill people from aircraft, we kill them from boats, we kill them from tanks, we kill them with bombs, shells, land mines, cluster bombs, and bullets up close and personal. They all end up just as dead regardless of the method used. Whether there is a person in the cockpit or not is more or less not relevant.

Lets just stop killing people. No one means is more "moral" than another and the end result is the same, more dead people.

The whole line of argument suggests it would be better if we pulled a few B52s out of mothballs and just carpet bombed the place, because after all, that would not be a dreaded drone.

[provis99]

19. 77% of "liberal" Democrats aren't liberal.

when a Democrat supports the flying equivalent of Colombian death squads, they aren't a liberal, they are merely pro-Democratic cheerleaders. IOKIADDI

[quinnox]

21. ...

[TheMadMonk]

20. Overpaid. Oversexed. And over here.

The world has had a less than charitable opinion about American behaviour since the Second World War.

[MrSlayer]

22. I think it's always been that way.

They just don't bother to hide it anymore. If they want to get you, they'll get you.

[bhikkhu]

31. That's pretty much what happens in a war, its nothing new

I wouldn't let the means of delivery confuse things. You might as well argue "drones don't kill people, Hellfire missiles kill people", then "Hellfire missiles don't kill people, its the finger on the launch button that kills people", then why do we have someone with their finger on the launch button? Because of the long boneheaded war we're in. So wars kill people, not drones. You might ask how we got into the war, and while al-qaeda is the easy answer, there were other ways to do it, I think.

In any case, a peace in Afghanistan is being worked on, and there appears to be a solid plan for everyone to be home by 2014. No war, no "killing anyone, anywhere, anytime".

[renie408]

32. If you think Barack Obama is wrong for allowing this to happen, you are racist.

I just read in another thread that if someone has a problem with Obama, they must be racist. So, if you don't like the drone policy...racist. If you don't like his compromises on cuts to entitlement programs...racist. If you don't like him signing the bill that allows the military to assassinate Americans on foreign soil...racist.

God, that pisses me off. And the funny thing is that the people claiming this don't give Barack Obama enough credit for being enough of a stand up guy to be hated on his merits alone. THEY are the ones that are racist.

[Bonobo]

33. Only Nixon could go to China and only Obama could assassinate Americans. nt

[Jester Messiah]

35. Same as it ever was.

Just ask the Cherokee, Iroquois, etc. This country has never hesitated to kill inconvenient people.

[got root]

37. Shock-n-Awe