General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsObama’s ‘kill list’ is unchecked presidential power
Washington Post
by Katrina vanden Heuvel
A stunning report in the New York Times depicted President Obama poring over the equivalent of terrorist baseball cards, deciding who on a “kill list” would be targeted for elimination by drone attack. The revelations — as well as those in Daniel Klaidman’s recent book — sparked public outrage and calls for congressional inquiry.
* * *
It is a policy driven largely by the new technological capacity of pilotless aircraft. Drone strikes have rapidly expanded, becoming a centerpiece of the Obama strategy. Over the last three years, the Obama administration has carried out at least 239 covert drone strikes, more than five times the 44 approved under George W. Bush.
* * *
Drones are also alarming. As a recent congressional letter of inquiry notes, “They are faceless ambassadors that cause civilian deaths .?.?. They can generate powerful and enduring anti-American sentiment.” The drone attacks may generate as many terrorists as they dispatch. They seduce the U.S. into literally policing the world, an intrusive presence that surely will generate hostility and retribution.
* * *
Over twenty legislators led by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) have written formally to the president asking that he explain openly “the process by which signature strikes are authorized and executed; the mechanisms used to “ensure such killings are legal;” and the mechanisms to track civilian casualties. The Congress should also insist that the Justice Department memo detailing the legal arguments relied on by the president be made public. And then Congress needs to hold a grand inquest on presidential war powers and the rights of both the Congress and American citizens.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-kill-list-is-unchecked-presidential-power/2012/06/11/gJQAHw05WV_story.html
FRONTLINE
"It's drones, baby, drones."
- (former) United States Secretary of Defence Robert Gates, March 2011.
Unmanned U.S. aircraft now routinely fly over Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen. Their cameras record the presence of men in motion. A commander sitting in a base thousands of kilometres away gives the kill order. The U.S. President had previously been over lists of alleged terrorists and marked off those who can be killed. This is the “kill list”. If only one person is to be killed, the execution is called a “personality strike”. If the drone kills more than one person, it is called a “signature strike”.
* * *
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ) estimates that between 2001 and 2012, the U.S. launched about a hundred drone strikes in Yemen, killing between 317 and 826 people. The civilian casualty is estimated to be anywhere between 58 and 138, of them 24 being children. These are all very poor numbers, as the Bureau acknowledges. The U.S. has not released any firm data; indeed the U.S. continues to have an ambiguous attitude regarding its assassination policy. It takes credit for the killings, but does not take responsibility for the programme itself.
In a stinging 29-page report in 2010, former United Nations special representative on extrajudicial executions Philip Alston asked the major powers to lay out the legal limits to extrajudicial assassinations. In a statement that accompanied the report, Alston described the political problem for the U.S.: “I'm particularly concerned that the United States seems oblivious to this fact when it asserts an ever-expanding entitlement for itself to target individuals across the globe. But this strongly asserted but ill-defined licence to kill without accountability is not an entitlement which the United States or other states can have without doing grave damage to the rules designed to protect the right to life and prevent extrajudicial executions.” In the quiet rooms of the U.N., such language is rare: it asserted that the continual U.S. use of drones was not only a violation of current norms but a threat to the architecture of conflict resolution and the rules of war.
The BIJ collected data not only from Yemen but also from Pakistan and Somalia. In Pakistan, U.S. drones have killed between 2,462 and 3,145 people, among whom 482 to 830 were civilians (including 175 children). The numbers of those injured are upwards of 3,000. After the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) summit in Chicago, the U.S. struck in Waziristan about seven times (by June 3). In Somalia, the U.S. conducted a handful of drone strikes, with deaths reported in the hundreds (among them three children). The BIJ's method is eclectic; it uses news reports and speeches. These are, therefore, not exact numbers, only indications of a trend. With no information forthcoming from the U.S., there is no way to have better figures.
http://www.frontline.in/stories/20120629291205100.htm
Both of these are very good articles that lay out the errors of Obama's Drone Doctrine. Each are well worth the read. We are trending into dangerous areas that will bring consequences for decades.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
railsback
(1,881 posts)or maybe just let the infestation grow out of control. Geezuz.
Obama promised during his 2008 campaign that he was going wage an all out war on the terrorists, and he has. Now everyone is shocked. Go figure.
Him saying he was going to end the wars and Guantanamo bay, instead he escalated iraq, and took 2 years to shut down, meanwhile escalating the war in afghanistan, and all these drones. He also expanded the PATRIOT ACT. I THOUGHT WE WERE GETTING AN ANTI-WAR PRESIDENT...guess not.
SoutherDem
(2,307 posts)President Romney will do much better!
hughee99
(16,113 posts)You make a compelling argument for the president to have the authority to issue assassination orders for specific people using drone strikes, without any due process.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Sheesh.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)going to join Greenwald and Scahill under the bus where soon won't be room for all the progressives who are scheduled to be there?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)shark by claiming the President is unchecked in his use of power. The article badly hurts its credibility by making the latter claim. I understand the arguments for and against his policies, but nothing in that changes the fact that the congress can impeach a President whose actions it does not like.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Do you have evidence that Katrina vandenHeuvel wrote the headline. Headlines are usually written by copy editors (though not always). I sent Ms vandenHeuvel asking her if she wrote it but I haven't heard back.
Also, it seems to me that you are picking a nit and avoiding a discussion about the article itself.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)That is exactly what he is doing. And, quite transparent at that.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)are the President's. I believe now that they are the US Government's policies and that no president would survive if he tried to change them, certainly he would not be reelected.
So that raises the question, how if they are wrong, and I believe they are, can this country restore the rule of law, re Habeas Corpus eg when the policies are so entrenched that I have come to believe that even Dennis Kucinich could not change them alone?
It seems to me that the only hope is for the people to keep bringing these issues to the courts as Congress has demonstrated they will not do what is necessary. But there has been more success when they are tested in court.
The other hope is in the people themselves, making their disapproval known so that on the chance that the President would like to change them, he would have the backing of the majority of the people. Otherwise I think things will get even worse, if, eg, a Republican were to get to the WH.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)since there was obviously no compelling argument there.
Variations on, "You must want President Romney!" in response to criticisms of this blood-soaked policy are pretty damned "sheesh"-worthy.
SoutherDem
(2,307 posts)IMHO NO! I just feel it could be worst if Romney were president. He has out right supported two additional military actions.
But, at the same time I do grow frustrated to see those Democrats who seem to get a charge pointing out how bad Obama is.
I am not for sticking our heads in the sand. I just get so tire of being attacked by the Republican and other right wing nuts, to get it from the left gets a little claustrophobic.
I know Obama isn't perfect and I know there are somethings he said he would do which he hasn't and there has been times I haven't agreed with him.
I just feel for now we need to focus our anger outward and not inward. Or come January 2013 we will have no one to blame but ourselves. (I don't mean just DU, but Democrats in general, I see this happening in other places too).
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)I see criticism of his actions, but a call for him to lose? I don't see that.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)via drone anyone he chooses in any country. If not, what controls do you think should WE THE PEOPLE put on him?
And where did he get this dictatorial power? Can you imagine this power in the hands of a nitwit like Bush or psychopath like Cheney?
Democracy is tough, let's keep it that way.
railsback
(1,881 posts)To have the power, or not have the power. If the U.S.S. Cole and 9/11 taught us anything, its that a relatively small amount of extremists can cause mass amounts of damage and death. Their mindset is the equivalent of our Teabaggers: No amount of logic will make them think logically. The piles of cash we feed the Arab nations via oil eventually trickles into these camps, hellbent on doing whatever it takes to inflict pain and suffering on Western (aka 'Christian) nations (see: Bin Laden). They've also learned not to stay in one area for too long, rendering any type of extraction unit useless. Enter the drone. So the question becomes this: Obama has his list of high value targets, and an amazingly intricate web of intelligence spread throughout the Middle East. Once a target is located and verified, does Obama take him out, hold public hearings asking for permission, or just forget about it, hoping the target doesn't do anything 'rash' in the near future?
The DU community seems content on taking our chances by letting extremists fester unabated. When the Twin Towers fell, everyone was freaked, wondering how we could have let this happen, so the logic makes no sense whatsoever. Though the Christian/Muslim 'war' has been raging for centuries, our support of Israel - who pretty much massacred hundreds of thousands of Arabs to claim the Holy Land - is the main catalyst for the rage. Working for, and establishing a free Palestinian state, will go a long way in easing this rage, but we all know that's not going to happen anytime soon. Until then, the dilemma continues, and I have no problem cutting off the heads of those snakes when that very narrow window of opportunity arises.
Democracy IS tough, but its certainly not black and white. Its our job as citizens to keep the nuts out of office. If we fail, then we suffer the consequences. That's just the stark reality. So what would be your solution be?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I asked. Is this power allowed by the Constitution? Should there be any kind of check on his use of this power?
We must be wary of being frightened into giving up our liberties.
railsback
(1,881 posts)Our elected officials are sworn to defend our nation
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)They are sworn to uphold the Constitution.
Here is the Presidential oath:
railsback
(1,881 posts)'Common defense' means nothing. And when our elected Congressional members take this oath - "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God." - it means nothing, either.
Enjoy President Romney and your newly ordained $1 an hour Teabagger economy.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)that up:
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/12/hatred_what_drones_sow/singleton/
Hatred: What drones sow
The hidden and growing danger of Obama's remote air war in Pakistan and Yemen
By Jefferson Morley
Destabilization is certainly what President Obama has delivered. “Both Pakistan and Yemen are arguably less stable and more hostile to the United States than when Mr. Obama became president,” noted Times reporters Jo Becker and Scott Shane in their “kill list” story. Yemen has been the country of origin for three of the most serious attempted attacks on U.S. civilian targets in recent years. Pakistan is the only nuclear state where Islamic fundamentalists compete for power, and its people are measurably more antagonistic toward America than they were when George W. Bush left office.
The metrics are dismal. The advent of the drone war in Yemen has coincided with the growth of al-Qaida there. When the Obama administration began the strikes in December 2009, al-Qaida had 200-300 members and controlled no territory. Now White House counterterrorism advisor John Brennan tells a group of New York cops that it has “more than 1,000? members. Gregory Johnsen, a journalist working on a book about the counterterror war in Yemen, says, “Al-Qaida now controls towns, administers courts, collects taxes, and generally acts like the government. It never had that before.”
sadge-virgo
(15 posts)Here I was, thinking that MAYBE like in many other instances, a politician was lying. So I voted for him in spite of my misgivings.
Well, well, well...It turns out he was telling the truth. 
xiamiam
(4,906 posts)talk to the hand, girlfriend?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)We are growing and spreading the "infestation" through the drone strikes.
railsback
(1,881 posts)All those centuries of the Western powers slaughtering Muslims, and our unabated support of Israel, who carried out a horrific genocide to clear the Arabs out of the Holy Land, have nothing to do with anything.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)inmcreaseed in Yemen. How do you see current western powers slaughtering muslims with drones different from previous actions. They all cause blowback. People don't like seeing innocent neighbors being killed by foriegn powers.
railsback
(1,881 posts)If you read the articles, collateral damage has been miniscule compared to Bush causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands. As far as Yemen, its ALWAYS been a haven for the extremists. The growth of Al Qaeda there has been a result of them fleeing other countries to a safer haven. Of course, that makes it a lot easier to pick them off.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)
frylock
(34,825 posts)because there WILL be another republican president, and i'm going to be here, front and center, reminding everyone that supports this shit that the whirlwind is being fucking reaped.
railsback
(1,881 posts)What's the worst that can happen. They say the new trade tower, the one we built in homage to remind everyone in the world about how a tiny group of well funded extremists kicked our asses, is built to withstand a couple of airliners.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I don't think the shock is directed at the ultimate goal, merely at the ways used to get there.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)The article(s) have a fatal flaw right out of the gate.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)on the Presidency.
You aren't bringing sunshine but rather are attempting to muddy the waters and avoid the actual conversation.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)So, in a sense, every act has a potential check. This is outrage in a desperate search for a point.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)and a unitary executive carrying out wars via the CIA. Interesting.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)and dismiss out of hand the seriousness of the issue, I don't think so.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)That is entirely beyond the particular policy being discussed. It could be fishing rights in Alaska territorial waters or the Presidents role in a new NCAA Football playoff. The idea that this or any President can exercise power without fear of being checked is ridiculous on its face.
Congress can impeach him. Disagree with his policies, fine, don't create unsupported melodrama about Presidential power.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Drone strikes in sovereign countries targeted at known or unknown individuals and populations as his preference for war actions. If you read the articles, you would be familiar with Obama's drone doctrine.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)As you interpreted it, I am in favor of it. The money quote in your post is "as his preference for war actions".
What that means to me is, if you are going to target those people, do you prefer drones and their limited and weaker weaponry over:
- A strike by a squadron of F-16s or other aircraft
- Ground assault.
- Standoff weapon like cruise missiles
morningfog
(18,115 posts)I prefer formal declarations of war from Congress prior to any acts of war. I prefer Congress to have real and actual advice and consent roles prior to and during any acts of war. I prefer those then sanctioned acts of war to be carried out by the US military, not the CIA and the executive branch in secrecy. I prefer Congress to be briefed and kept in the loop on who is being targeted, where and why, if it is necessary.
I also prefer us to grow up and cast off the fear of the waronterror. I prefer good intelligence and police actions to prevent attacks rather than kill innocents and radicalize populations.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)ala closing Gitmo. Heck, they might even overrule his force reductions. If congress wanted to put a stop to drone strikes they could.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)stop it. Those are both checks on the President's power here.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)
Ah--ah--ah!
morningfog
(18,115 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)You are impossible. You did a good job of highjacking the thread based solely on your misunderstanding of a headline. I would encourage you to read further in the articles, though.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)"consent"
morningfog
(18,115 posts)by the Executive Department.
railsback
(1,881 posts)mmmmHmmm.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Perhaps Katrina did not write the headline.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Are you suggesting that should be the first line of attack on this policy.
If you read the entire first article, members of Congress are trying to get more informatino from the executive.
You are trying to head off any criticism far too early.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)That is the assertion with which I take issue.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Congressmembers are trying to get information from the WH, but have been denied. Congress doesn't know what the procedure is, it may not be an impeachable offense. The point is that this is a unitary executive war without any involvement from Congress. Read the rest of the articles to better understand instead of knee-jerking to the headline.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)are still stonewalled, they can remove the President. Congress holds the ultimate check on all Presidential actions.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Congress is trying to gain some insight but being denied. As it is right now, the drone wars are unchecked unitary actions by the executive office.
You live in fantasy land if you think Congress would ever actually impeach over a war action. You can't be serious with that suggestion. I'll tell you what I think, I think you want to defend whatever the President does, and your arguments and defense of these actions is so weak, you have to rely on a false construct: that Congress has oversight because they could impeach.
That is an absolutely silly and a disingenuous argument.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Quit the melodrama.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)article. And I think you know that. Congress has asked for more information and been denied. If you were around for the Bush Administration, you know how hard it is for Congress to be effective at oversight and impeachment.
The melodrama is in your posts. You are discrediting yourself by remaining hung up on a headline so that you can avoid defending a horrible policy. You are quite transparent in this thread.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)
ChazII
(6,205 posts)I wonder when the United States will be attacked by drones. Which country(ies) have this technology? Yes, I am a pessimist and feel it is just a matter of time before the country is attacked.
panader0
(25,816 posts)In war, many innocents are killed. Perhaps the idea of limiting the killing to specified targets will cause less "collateral damage".
In WWII, did our troops require an Okay to shoot the enemy? Perhaps drones are a more stategic way of taking out the enemy.
Certainly, innocents are killed by mistake. Would you suggest carpet bombing?
The "kill list" is at least specific as to which people need to be taken out.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Would I suggest carpet bombing? No
Would I suggest killing people with drones? No
Would you?
panader0
(25,816 posts)I am a pacifist. I won't even step on an ant if I can avoid it.
But the reality is that the US, for better or worse, is at war. Specific targets are better than whole cities.
RC
(25,592 posts)And against which country? The war on Terror is a nebulous concept at best, when with each drone strike, we generate more "terrorists".
Who are the terrorist really? Those who are defending their country, in their country? Or a major world power, half way around the world from that country, violating the sovereignty of another country's borders with killer drones?
We are killing citizens in their own country, their governments are protesting, and THEY are the Terrorists?
xiamiam
(4,906 posts)its never ending..against a concept..and basically undeclared..and who profits? ..beyond ridiculous insanity more than a decade after it began..i'm so sick of it and the drone strikes and the kill list i could scream...i'm not alone..i think the use of drones is punk and basically juvenile hoodlum behavior and that includes our president..i have no respect for it and never will..add the kill list and that has put me over the top but i dont know what to do. I used to be able to come here and rant all I wanted but now its an election year and this place is more about politics and winning than about morality and justice or peace. I'm pissed and will probably stay this way until the war on terror is recognized by everyone for the charade that it is.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)Congress passed the AUMF and then continues to fund the military efforts against Al Qaeda. So, yes, we are at war with the groups identified in the AUMF.
Tell me, when did Congress declare war in the Civil War?
RC
(25,592 posts)Over ten years later, we are still using that excuse the bu$h administration lied to get.
A country did not attack us. So how can we declare war? The war that was declared was on an innocent country that did not have anything to do with 9/11. Iraq finally kicked us out. They got tired of us killing their civilians. The excuse that was used to start this war no longer holds.
What gives us, U.S. the right to ignore borders and country sovereignty, to kill their citizens within? An act of our Congress, that was based on lies, supersedes International Law? Since when?
We are picking and choosing our own 'enemies' off a list that gets maintained on say-so's, in the name of fighting terrorism, when anyone paying attention can see we are now the real terrorist in this conflict.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)When did that occur?
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Thats funny!
Every single Democrat who voted FOR the AUMF disagrees with you,
from John Kerry to Hillary Clinton.
They claim Bush-the-Lesser FAR exceeded anything "granted" in the AUMF.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)Guess it's a "funny because it's true" kind of thing.
Go look up the declaration of war that authorized Lincoln to begin the Civil War. You might learn something.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)...twist themselves into pretzels.
When Bush-the-Lesser was president, they defended the Democrats who crossed over to support Bush insisting that the AUMF was nothing more than a token gesture of support for the president, and that the AUMF didn't really authorize the president to do anything without the approval of Congress.
This same crowd ridiculed those of us at DU who saw the AUMF as a blank check,
and wanted the Democrats to answer for their recklessness and culpability.
NOW, that same crowd insists that the AUMF gives the President the power to do anything he wants, up to and including the assassination of American citizens without answering to anybody for anything.
THAT is what I find amusing.
Some of us at DU are consistent,
and, for us, it IS fascinating (in a circus side show way) watching the amazing contortions of those who lack a moral compass.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)And it does nothing to refute my simple point: the AUMF gives President Obama permission to use military options in pursuit of a specific goal. That's what these drone strikes are.
Have you found out when Congress declared war in 1861 against the rebellious states? Have you even done a search for it yet? Lincoln killed a hell of a lot of American citizens without due process then. He sent armies in after them and shot them the fuck up. Not a single one of the Confederate soldiers or innocent civilians who died in a battle got due process. When did Congress declare war then? Do you even know this?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Federal troops vs US citizens. No Declaration of War or congressional oversight.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)He totally sold us out.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Hey!
This is EASY!
All I have to do is put a smokescreen in the title line,
NOT address anything in the content of the post,
and I'm Good to Go!
.
.
.
.
...but in the interest of accuracy and education,
claims that are put in the title line really should be supported in the text.
In Post #34 you made the claim,
[font color=red]"Congress passed the AUMF and then continues to fund the military efforts against Al Qaeda. So, yes, we are at war with the groups identified in the AUMF."[/font]
You THEN added a Red Herring (look it up) about something President Lincoln did in the Civil War
that actually weakens your original claim about the AUMF.
If everything necessary for war was contained in the AUMF,
why bring up President Lincoln at all?
For the sake of clarity, civility and rational debate, I chose to ignore the Red Herring and address your claim about the AUMF.
I stated in Post #68:
[font color=blue]"Every single Democrat who voted FOR the AUMF disagrees with you,
from John Kerry to Hillary Clinton.
They claim Bush-the-Lesser FAR exceeded anything "granted" in the AUMF. "[/font]
My claim is neither "bullshit" nor a Strawman.
It IS historical fact.
If you are too young to remember the incident, I suggest Google.
You should look for statements by the Democratic Party leadership after voting FOR the AUMF.
Another period of interest is during the democratic Primaries and Campaign 2004 when many questioned whether if was a good idea to nominate someone who voted FOR the AUMF,
and their statements concerning the AUMF and what it did and did not authorize.
Again, what Lincoln DID or Did NOT do has absolutely NO bearing on the AUMF,
and only weakens your argument about the AUMF.
It is possible to find many incidents where Presidents have exceeded their Constitutional authority,
but NONE have a bearing on the AUMF.
The ODD thing is that I agree with you somewhat about the AUMF.
At the time, I opposed it because it gave Bush-the Lesser a blank check to go to War in Iraq and to target the handful of terrorists responsible for 9-11.
I STILL oppose it even though it is NOW the Democratic Party leadership that wishes to use it as blanket authority to do whatever they want to do without accountability or oversight.
You should note the following:
At no time did I misrepresent your argument.
Therefore, no Strawman
What Lincoln did or did not so has no relevance to the AUMF.
Diverting the discussion of the AUMF to something that happened in the 1860s
IS a Red Herring.
No Charge this time.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)I remind you - you responded to my post first, and I'd made the Civil War point then.
You're throwing up a lot of bullshit to obscure the fact that war was never declared by the Congress in the Civil War. That's what I was talking about in my first post in this thread.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)You made an incorrect statement about the AUMF.
I corrected you.
It is perfectly OK for me to do this.
You can post a whole laundry list of nonsense, non-sequiters, mistakes, bullshit, logical fallacies,
inconsistencies, smoke screens, diversions, fantasies, wishful thinkings, balderdash, or poppycock.
I am perfectly free to choose whichever one I want, and contest it,
as I have done.
Case Closed.
Have a nice day.
Just curious, but were you such an enthusiastic supporter of the extra-constitutional powers
of a Unitary Executive[ when Bush-the-Lesser grabbed them?
Do you expect the President to relinquish these "War Time" powers when we have militarily defeated the concept of "Terror"?
Will you be as supportive when President Gingrich or President Palin (or the next Republican)
claims the powers of the Unitary executive in the perpetual WAR on WHATEVER?
Ignorance is Strength.
Freedom is Slavery!
We have always been at war with EastAsia (Terror).
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)Hey!
I've long forgotten how easy this is.
New Rules for Debate and Discussion at DU3
Forget everything you have learned about logic, debate, presenting you argument, and supporting your position.
All you need to remember is THIS:
1)Never, ever admit you might have been mistaken,
especially when you realize you have really fucked up.
2)Never hesitate to jump into a thread even if you know absolutely nothing about the topic.
3) A one line posts that addresses nothing in the content of OP is the best,
especially if it attacks the messenger.
4)Add lots of these to you post for emphasis:
5)Repeat step 4.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1240&pid=107392
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)xiamiam
(4,906 posts)without borders..its a joke but its not funny
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)are non-state actors but nations are permitted to use military force against them as opposed to being required to treat them like large groups of criminals. Pirates would be a historical example.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)And how do you know who or why a person ends up on the kill list?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)The extreme ramp up in drone strikes is unecessary and counter-productive. It is not needed nor is it serving our best interests. Neither would carpet bombing or sending in troops serve our best interests.
There is a wide expanse of options between the extremes.
xiamiam
(4,906 posts)diplomacy?..who needs diplomacy when you can just kill people
treestar
(82,383 posts)It's at least an improvement. As to the war being unnecessary, that's another question, but this sort of complaint the OP makes would apply to all war methods.
mister roboto
(11 posts)Would you (as someone I assume detested Dubya's reign of error) have approved of another country coming into ours and taking out our (unpopular) leader?! I sure as hell would not have!
randome
(34,845 posts)Even granting it's true, that doesn't mean anyone knows the details behind it, how it came into being, what kind of thinking is behind it?
I don't believe everything a politician says but I also don't believe everything I read.
great white snark
(2,646 posts)They skip fact-finding and head straight to outrage.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)And very likely aiding the enemy and causing Obama to lose the coming election. Who knew DU had so much power, that it can even swing a national election? Well, yea, it does have this power, mainly because I said so.
Don't mind me, just parodying some recent posts I saw.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)some believe simply sharing articles already widely published has. I wish posts on discussion boards had a fraction of the power attributed them. If we can't discuss appropriateness of war policies during an election year, we are pathetic and hopeless.
quaker bill
(8,224 posts)does not have a list, it has a deck of cards.....
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)And I like the stats about how Obama has had more drone strikes than Bush.
We also had more aerial bombings in WWII than we did in WWI.
During WWI, WWII, Korea, or Vietnam, the President did not have the ability to focus our military efforts down to the individual, although they definitely wished they could.
But Obama trying to personally narrow the focus is a bad thing.
Ok.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)war on terror era? Red herring.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)target whoever they want?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)bush-era waronterra has nothing to do with the previous wars you mentioned.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Try this ...
Gulf War I was not Vietnam, which was not Korea, which was not WWII, which was not WWI, which was not ..... and so on.
Obama ended the Iraq war. Does he get credit for that .... nope.
He's rampping down Afghanistan. Does he get credit for that ... nope.
For all the screaming about Egypt and Libya, how those were "new wars" ... its now clear, NO, they aren't. Never were.
And so, to return to Obama personally limiting who we use drones against ... I'd rather that. Fewer troops on the ground. And a very selective target list.
deaniac21
(6,747 posts)coconuts are migratory?
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)claims the right to kill anyone, anywhere, any time, based on a secret determination that the person was an enemy of the state.
RC
(25,592 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)And, have a bunch of constipated looking politicians and generals tell us we are a peaceful nation unfairly attacked. Throw in a chorus of God Bless America to ensure that God's on our side.
