New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

About them doggone drones.

No. That is not remotely close to what I said. I suggest you re-read it, more carefully this time.


You said Obomas use of Drones to murder was not illegal under international law. Since the CIA are using Drones in countries that you are not Occupying nor have declared War on I presume you must mean that he is free under International Law to kill by Drone at will anywhere or anyone he will.

Legally, under International Law, what is the difference between Yemen and Britain, Somalia and France, Pakistan and India ?
 
Middleview, I assume you could come up with a list of requirements you think would be sufficient to justify a drone strike, outside a war-zone, to kill a suspect. I could, to. There would need to be probable cause to believe the person was actively plotting to kill Americans, there'd need to be a reasonable basis on which to think that he couldn't realistically be captured alive and brought to trial, and there'd have to be a reasonable belief that he could be killed without excessive loss of innocent lives. Sound good to you? The problem is that each of those three prongs involve a judgment call.

That's not, of course, unusual, in the context of other dangerous people, like suspected murderers domestically. But the way we deal with it is to have checks and balances, so that it's not all in one person's absolute (and secret) discretion to make those calls. For example, for a search to be conducted of a murder suspect's house, both the police and the judge need to concur, in their INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT, that there's probable cause. And in the case of the judge, he's expected to be impartial, not an advocate of a particular side. Moreover, he's expected to be operating within the confines of precedent, and ultimately his exercises of discretion can be reviewed at trial, and upon appeal. That holds people in check. Right now we don't have that with these summary executions. It's entirely within the president's discretion, using only whatever advice and standards he, personally, wants to follow.

I could support a system that allowed targeted killings, if there were standards that had the force of law, and checks and balances that reined in any individual's exercise of discretion. That's not what we have right now.

Arkady, how many requests for search warrants have been denied? Would one out of a thousand be close?

I'm reasonably sure that the President doesn't just arbitrarily decide to order a drone attack. But to cover all legal ninceties we could have a (kangaroo) court and try these traitors in absentia and sentence them to death by drone.

This is a cursory reply to your post. I agree that you have some cause for concern.
 
You said Obomas use of Drones to murder was not illegal under international law. Since the CIA are using Drones in countries that you are not Occupying nor have declared War on I presume you must mean that he is free under International Law to kill by Drone at will anywhere or anyone he will.

Legally, under International Law, what is the difference between Yemen and Britain, Somalia and France, Pakistan and India ?

What I said, Queenie, was this: The use of drones to kill combatants is certainly not illegal under international law.

And you responded with this:

Queen Titania: So no one is safe as far as you are concerned Oboma may kill anyone anywhere by Drone legally ?

LeRoy: Let me repeat my statement, emphasizing the word that you evidently missed:

The use of drones to kill combatants is certainly not illegal under international law.

Apparently, you think that "anyone, anywhere" qualifies as a 'combatant'. That's just weird.
 
I would love it if there were a magic button I could push to force liberal posters here, just for one day, to post the way they would if all the same policies were being carried out, only by the Bush/Cheney administration. I can proudly say that there would be very little difference in what I was posting, because I support ideas, not parties. But I'm absolutely certain that nearly all the other liberals here would be singing very different tunes (as would nearly all the conservatives).

You have a bright future in the GOP.
 
There are two major possibilities here.

One, Obama was both naive and arrogant, and so he lectured the Bushies about their behaviors, even though he would have supported those actions if only he hadn't been so ignorant. In other words, Bush and Cheney were right all along, and once Obama knew what they knew, he reversed himself.

Two, Obama is an unprincipled opportunist, who played a liberal on TV when he thought that would get him votes, and happily reversed himself the moment that became the more politically convenient path.

I think it's the latter, for two reasons:

(1) There is a pattern of behavior here, of Obama moving to the politically advantageous position across a host of unrelated issues. For example, one can assume that Obama didn't suddenly discover some top-secret presidential security briefing revealing new facts about gay marriage that he was previously unaware of. Yet, nonetheless, when it was politically convenient to insist that marriage is between a man and a woman, that was his position, and then once the overall population reached an opinion tipping point where it became politically convenient to support same-sex marriage, Obama suddenly discovered a brand new principle. So, we know his character is such that he blows in the political winds.

(2) The timing of his born-again neoconservatism and presidential authoritarianism is consistent with the idea that it's dictated by politics not secret information. Think about it -- if he changed views based on receiving security briefings, we'd expect that repositioning to begin around the time when those briefings started to reach him -- probably some time after the inauguration, or, at the earliest, some time during the transition when they started to bring him up to speed. On the other hand, if he's just a spineless opportunist, we'd expect that repositioning to begin around the time he'd sewed up the Democratic nomination (when it was no longer helpful to pose as a liberal to pull the votes of the liberal base from Hillary Clinton, and instead became politically convenient to erase as much policy distance between himself and McCain as possible.) Sadly, the timing followed the latter scenario. While the Democratic nomination was still realistically in play, he was promising in no uncertain terms to filibuster the FISA vote. Then, once it was clear he'd be the nominee, he voted for the FISA amendment. This wasn't because he'd gotten some secret security briefing, long before the general election, which changed his mind. It was because he didn't want McCain to have the FISA issue to use against him, so once Clinton no longer could, he reversed himself.

I have no clue whether, as a matter of conviction, Obama was for or against the FISA changes. Was he lying to us in order to compete better against Clinton, and he actually supported the changes all along? Or was he telling the truth about his beliefs, but then voted against them as a matter of political expediency? I don't have a clue. But, whatever the case is, we clearly can't blame access to presidential security briefings for his 180-degree reversal. And since the rest of his alignment with the Bush/Cheney policy positions is just more of the same, I see little reason to think it's some secret information in those briefings driving him.

Instead, I think he's basically a scumbag who will take the path of least political resistance.... and at a time when the Republicans are cool with him killing people without trial, but would crucify him for a successful terrorist attack, the path of least political resistance is to kill anyone he remotely thinks could be a terrorist threat.

In reality, any politician does what the majority of the public wants---REGARDLESS OF HIS OWN OPINIONS. If he doesn't, then he doesn't stay a politician long. President Obama was REelected in spite of changing some of his first-term views. President Ron Paul, oops!, i meant to say Candidate Ron Paul stuck to his convictions and be damned with what the public thought.

BTW, there is a guy in Dallas you should meet. I think you two would really hit it off.
 
What I said, Queenie, was this: The use of drones to kill combatants is certainly not illegal under international law.

And you responded with this:

Queen Titania: So no one is safe as far as you are concerned Oboma may kill anyone anywhere by Drone legally ?

LeRoy: Let me repeat my statement, emphasizing the word that you evidently missed:

The use of drones to kill combatants is certainly not illegal under international law.

Apparently, you think that "anyone, anywhere" qualifies as a 'combatant'. That's just weird.


Who the hell is at War with you ? Do they know ? Did you tell them ?

You are Occupiers of other peoples Lands and there are International Laws pertaining your responsibility to the peoples under your Occupation. Other than that CIA Drones are killing Tribal peoples in Lands you are not at War with.
 
I hate war. I really see no reason for it. Ever. OK. There are a few reasons for war sometimes. But it's rare. Just talk things over and get them fixed.

But wars happen and there's no changing that.

I agree that it's the side with the best stuff that ultimately wins the war. That's why I don't understand the Obama penchant for downsizing our military and stopping the building of certain things that would ensure that we have the best stuff. He doesn't want the other side to win, does he? If not, then I would like for someone to explain why we need to strip our Department of Defense down to bare essentials.

Jen

Jen, in your daily life you need your daily bread. One loaf is sufficient. You don' need a complete cupboard full. I think our Defense Department and the President can decide as to what we need to defend ourselves (Or impose our will if need be).
 
Frankly, I'm bored with your obsession over drone attacks. You don't give a damn about innocent Americans being killed by police officers right here at home.

Frankly I'm disgusted by your contempt for the basic principle of having checks and balances on power. As for your contention that I don't give a damn about innocent Americans being killed by police officers here at home, I have no clue at all what that's supposed to be a reference to.

As for Obama's position regarding gay marriage, you are shocked that he changed his position on the issue as the opinion of the electorate shifted.

I am? What on earth would give you that idea?! I had Obama pegged quite early as a man whose only real principle was his own egomania, so I couldn't have been less shocked when he set sail on the political wind to a more convenient position on that issue, when the time came. If there were a sudden evangelical backlash in this country and gay marriage became extremely unpopular overnight, I would fully expect to see Obama reverse himself again. And I wouldn't be shocked to see all the usual authoritarian suspects here providing their mealy-mouthed apologetics for him when he did that. You'd need to be a newcomer to political debates not to have picked up on the fact that the majority of political partisans are no more driven by policy principles than the majority of partisans for sports teams are. For most, it's about picking a team and then cheering for them no matter what.

Should a President campaign with an ironclad, unchanging position on every issue and then remain true to that position regardless of circumstances?

Absolutely not. But when he consistently changes to whatever political position best suits his own personal ambitions at the moment, I draw the obvious conclusion about his character (or, in the case of Obama, utter lack thereof).

With Obama, what first alerted me to the way he sees the world was his absurd healthcare proposal during the 2008 primary. Anyone even remotely familiar with health insurance --and anyone with any functioning common sense-- could see that what he was proposing could never work. You couldn't have a rule against denying coverage for pre-existing condition without also having a mandate or some sort of serious effort to force people into healthcare coverage, for the painfully obvious reasons. It was obvious from day one that Obamacare, once it got serious, would either need to drop its insistence on pre-existing conditions being covered, or it would need to include something like a mandate. But the American people are dumb as a post and they wanted to hear that you could avoid a mandate and still get coverage for pre-existing conditions, so that's what Obama told them. It was what was most convenient to say to beat Hillary Clinton and John Edwards (each of whom was at least a little honest, and so they both had mandates in their own plans).

I don't believe for an instant that Obama thought his ridiculous campaign-era plan was workable (he never even tried to enact it), and so it told me what I needed to know about him: that he was someone whose sole core principle was his own ambition. I've yet to see anything during his presidency to change my opinion about that. I voted for him twice because his politics are better on the majority of the issues than the alternative, but it was with a well-earned sense of revulsion.

I'm no idealist. I take the lesser of the two evils, rather than voting for a third party to keep my conscience clean of association with the likes of Obama, and similar slime-balls. But I'm not going to make excuses for them when they behave that way, either.
 
Tribal People?......The targets are pretty specific...Do they miss?....No doubt at times...Are innocents killed?...Unfortunately yes...Do they target Tribal Peoples?....No....Complete Non-sense
 
Yes... But President Obama actually got health-care reform passed, didn't he? I'm not happy with the compromises in the existing legislation, but we actually made progress, something that no prior President has managed. That's how politics works. You can't do any good at all if you don't get elected first.

You are an idealist. I am a pragmatist. Your blanket statements about liberals don't apply to me.

I know that Obama is not a perfect person. Then again, Jesus wasn't on the damned ticket, was he?

Maybe you should run? ;)
 
You'd need to be a newcomer to political debates not to have picked up on the fact that the majority of political partisans are no more driven by policy principles than the majority of partisans for sports teams are. For most, it's about picking a team and then cheering for them no matter what.

Yep. It's Shirts vs. Skins.
 
In reality, any politician does what the majority of the public wants---REGARDLESS OF HIS OWN OPINIONS. If he doesn't, then he doesn't stay a politician long. President Obama was REelected in spite of changing some of his first-term views. President Ron Paul, oops!, i meant to say Candidate Ron Paul stuck to his convictions and be damned with what the public thought.

BTW, there is a guy in Dallas you should meet. I think you two would really hit it off.

I'm no starry-eyed idealist. I don't insist that Obama be pure as the driven snow. He needs to pick his battles. If he decided that gay marriage wasn't a battle worth fighting in 2008, so he lied to us and pretended to oppose it when he really didn't, so it wouldn't be a disadvantageous issue in the election, I'm fine with that. Masquerade as a bigot. And if he then "came out of the closet" with his real view once he realized the majority had swung his way and it now was not politically risky to stop pretending to be a bigot, that's fine, too. Gay marriage is a relatively small issue, only impacting a small percentage of Americans, so I can take him tossing that one overboard in the interest of electability. I just offered it up as an example of a pattern.

The problem is the pattern pops up again and again, often on much more troubling issues. He is eroding our civil rights in a very serious way, and setting bipartisan precedents for autocratic rule that may be difficult or impossible to change down the road. I still voted for the guy --again-- because he was the lesser of the two evils, and I'm a pragmatist. But I refuse to censor my disgust. Obama isn't just a Clinton-style triangulator, cagily co-opting some Republican talking points to advance his agenda subtly. He's an unprincipled hack, who is only really there to serve himself, and is merely the less bad of the available options.
 
Yes... But President Obama actually got health-care reform passed, didn't he?

Yes, Obama got Republican healthcare reform enacted (the Romneycare system designed by the conservative Heritage Foundation think-tank). That's better than nothing. I'll even say it was a very significant step forward. And it's certainly more than Clinton managed to get with his more ambitious attempt in the 90s. But none of that excuses Obama lying to Democratic voters during the primary in order to defeat two candidates who had more honest plans. In fact, those lies may have factored in to the ultimate reform package being so conservative, since Obama's dishonest criticisms of Clinton and Edwards got thrown back in his face, putting the administration on the defensive from day one.

Again, I'm not an idealist. If I were, I wouldn't have voted for Obama twice. That's the act of a pragmatist. Pragmatism requires me to advance the lesser of two evils when those are my only two options. Pragmatism does not, however, require me to be a reflexive apologist for every new Obama enormity.
 
I am? What on earth would give you that idea?! I had Obama pegged quite early as a man whose only real principle was his own egomania, so I couldn't have been less shocked when he set sail on the political wind to a more convenient position on that issue, when the time came. If there were a sudden evangelical backlash in this country and gay marriage became extremely unpopular overnight, I would fully expect to see Obama reverse himself again.

I doubt that. I doubt it very much. I think that Obama went through a genuine evolution of his views on gay marriage, exactly as many, many millions of other Americans have. Including myself. If you had asked me back in the 1980s if gay marriage should be allowed, I would have not only said no, I would have said "HELL no!" If you had asked me in the early 1990s, I would have said the idea made me very uncomfortable. If you had asked me in the late 1990s, I would have said "I don't think I have any real problem with it, personally, but the American people are clearly not ready for it." Only at some point in the last twelve years or so, have I become a strong supporter of the idea of allowing gays to marry.

You know, Hillary Clinton, the former Secretary of State, whom you seem to admire very much for her 'honesty', was one of the people who HAD to sign off on the targeting of Anwar Al-Awlaki. The Secretary of State is one of the members of the National Security Council. Perhaps you weren't aware of that.
 
Again, I'm not an idealist. If I were, I wouldn't have voted for Obama twice. That's the act of a pragmatist. Pragmatism requires me to advance the lesser of two evils when those are my only two options. Pragmatism does not, however, require me to be a reflexive apologist for every new Obama enormity.


Nor does it require me to do that.
 
Back
Top