General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKill the government kill list program
President Obama, it was revealed in a New York Times story, personally approves the kills, which are carried out by drone strikes in other countries, such as Pakistan and Yemen, and are often messy affairs in which people who happen to be nearby also get blown up.
...
Should Americans allow the president the power to personally single out American citizens as suspects, pass judgment on them and carry out death sentences in secret?
Should Americans accept that what amounts to assassinations are conducted by their government based on criteria and legal positions that are kept secret?
Should Americans approve of their government conducting targeted killings of suspects in countries with which America is not at war?
Read more: http://www.canoncitydailyrecord.com/opinion/editorial/ci_20773678/kill-government-kill-list-program
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Yes ... those do go together.
Wait Wut
(8,492 posts)...crap. I just kicked this thread. I purposely try to avoid doing that, but BB's post made me giggle.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)That was just too funny!!
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)I miss the good old days when anti-war meant that one was a Bush hater.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)Anti-war recognizes that it takes at least two parties to war, and both are wrong.
Anti-Obama propaganda focuses only on the actions of Obama.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)until Bush got distracted into Iraq ... I think Obama is doing well to close down both. The killing of OBL was great ... removing our troops is great.
And ... I think that I would rather Obama approve the list of those targeted versus our President leaving such decisions to others.
You remind me of the tea party right wing folks who see a world that is black or white, with no grey.
Both of your groups have been wrong about Obama over and over btw ... he closed down Iraq. Most like you said he never would. Said he'd never end DADT. Said he's never draw down Afghanistan.
You are running out of things to be wrong about.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)with Obama on Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen or the Philippines (or whatever other impoverished country our military, CIA, and other government institutions decide to bomb).
I've not once claimed that we wouldn't leave Iraq or Afghanistan. Nor have I ever said that he wouldn't end DADT.
I am against his bombing campaigns being waged in countries other than Iraq and Afghanistan because the aftermath is no better and often worse than doing nothing at all.
We've left one country destroyed, its infrastructure in shambles, hundreds of thousands killed and millions of its citizens displaced - homeless and on the brink of starvation. We've left a violent police state where, as Human Rights Watch puts it:
In February, Human Rights Watch uncovered a secret detention facility controlled by elite security forces who report to the military office of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. The same elite divisions controlled Camp Honor, a separate facility in Baghdad where detainees were tortured with impunity.
Iraq is quickly slipping back into authoritarianism as its security forces abuse protesters, harass journalists, and torture detainees, said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. Despite U.S. government assurances that it helped create a stable democracy, the reality is that it left behind a budding police state.
But, the west secured its oil contracts. So yippee! We're outta there!
I don't expect anything less in Afghanistan. Totally destroyed an already beleaguered country? Check. Corrupt government friendly to western interests? Check. It's citizens held in terror by terrorists and the military? Check. We'll see what goodies the west will have contracted for in 2013 & 2014.
Obama's list is no kinder or gentler than any one else's list.
FSogol
(45,525 posts)Agenda much?