About them doggone drones.

[LeRoy_Was_Here]

It seems to me we apprehended Saddam Hussein, and then turned him over to his countrymen for trial. I guess it can be done after all.


Of course, killing bad guys with drones is easier, even if a few kids get blown up in the process. That is the argument here, right?

Wow. Simply wow. How many TROOPS did we have in Iraq at the time we apprehended Saddam Hussein? 200,000? 250,000? I don't know the exact number, but it hardly matters. You really are suggesting that to apprehend Anwar Al-Awlaki, we should have mounted a full-scale invasion of Yemen, probably requiring at a minimum, 100,000 fully armed soldiers and Marines.

That would have really 'endeared' us to the rest of the Islamic world, wouldn't it? We would have created 10,000 additional terrorists, in order to 'arrest' one.

I am very, VERY glad you're not in charge of anything, you know, IMPORTANT.

 

[Arkady]

In all fairness to President Obama, that was also before he had access to presidential security briefings.

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.

 

[RedCloud]

This is what is being objected to;

A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.




In other words, our government can kill any U.S. citizen at any time, based on nothing more than a belief.

ZZ, you seem to be implying that the President can, without intelligence confirmation, order the killing of any American citizen at any time. You should know that that is not the case.

I agree with the present policy, be the President Democrat or Republican or Independent. Now if Bush had ordered a drone strike on Gore while Gore was in Nashville, then I might change my mind.

 

[Jen]

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

 

[Arkady]

I am certainly not one of those who think that "the Obama administration can do no wrong". I am perfectly happy to criticize the Obama administration when their actions justify it. I do not approve of warrantless wiretapping, for instance, and will say that regardless of whether it is a Republican or a Democratic administration. I do not approve of the stepped-up prosecutions of whistle-blowers. I attach great value to habeus corpus, and don't like seeing it revoked, even in wartime, though the Constitution clearly specifies that it MAY be suspended in wartime.

But, on the other hand, I am still waiting for either you or Arkady to spell out, in a precise way, exactly HOW we were supposed to 'apprehend' Anwar Al-Awlaki, and bring him to trial. It would clearly have been preferable, if we could have done that, but we could NOT. We could NOT 'apprehend' Awlaki. Try to get that through your head, and then get back with me.

Regarding suspending habeas corpus during wartime, the problem we have now is that, if you see the undeclared "war on terrorism" as a war, for purposes of suspending basic rights, those rights are effectively gone forever. It's a "war" in the same sense as the "war on drugs" (which, after all, has long included an international and paramilitary aspect). If you can throw suspected terrorists into jail indefinitely without trial or charge, or any habeas corpus hearing, because of the undeclared war on terrorism, why can't you throw suspected drug dealers into jail without trial the same way, because of the war on drugs? For that matter, could a president "disappear" an industrialist to Gitmo based on the war on poverty?

The war on terrorism is not going away. Any erosions we permit in its name are not like those during the Civil War and the world wars, that can be expected to sunset a few years down the road at some bright-line point of victory (or defeat). They become the new normal.

I can't imagine that's at all what the Founders had in mind. They would have been well aware of threats not too dissimilar to modern terrorism. In fact, many of them had some involvement in groups whose tactics would be labeled terrorism today. Take the Sons of Liberty, for example. They attacked people and property with the intent of influencing political outcomes. That's terrorism. So it's hard to imagine that the Founders would have seen that kind of activity as a reason to allow habeas corpus to be suspended indefinitely.

Just as another example of textbook terrorism that the founders would have been well familiar with, consider the gunpowder plot of Guy Fawkes. Can you picture a Madison or Jefferson standing up and saying the King has the right to throw anyone in jail indefinitely without a hearing if, in the King's sole discretion, that was necessary and proper for preventing another attempted attack like the one on the houses of Parliament?

 

[RedCloud]

Just a few, really only a few of a long long list, of Obomas victims

date: name, age, nationality
2009-01-23: Azaz-ur-Rehman, 14, Pakistani
2009-02-14: Noor Syed, 8, Pakistani
2009-08-11: Ibad Ullah, teenager, Pakistani
2009-08-11: Mohammad Arif, teenager, Pakistani
2009-08-11: Abdul Qadeer, teenager, Pakistani
2009-08-11: Hazrat Ali, teenager, Pakistani
2009-08-21: Syed Wali Shah, 7, Pakistani
2009-08-21: Naeemullah,?, Pakistani
2009-08-21: Faizullah,?, Pakistani
2009-08-21: Rahima,?, Pakistani
2009-08-21: Shaista,?, Pakistani
2009-11-20: Sakeenullah, 15, Pakistani
2009-12-31: Zaenullah Khan, 17, Pakistani
2009-12-17: Nasser Mohammed Nasser, 6, Yemeni
2009-12-17: Arwa Mohammed Nasser, 4, Yemeni
2009-12-17: Fatima Mohammed Nasser, 2, Yemeni
2009-12-17: Afrah Ali Mohammed Nasser, 9, Yemeni
2009-12-17: Zayda Ali Mohammed Nasser, 7, Yemeni
2009-12-17: Hoda Ali Mohammed Nasser, 5, Yemeni
2009-12-17: Sheikha Ali Mohammed Nasser, 4, Yemeni
2009-12-17: Asmaa Abdullah Mokbel Salem Louqye, 9, Yemeni
2009-12-17: Salma Abdullah Mokbel Salem Louqye, 4, Yemeni
2009-12-17: Fatima Abdullah Mokbel Salem Louqye, 3, Yemeni
2009-12-17: Khadije Ali Mokbel Louqye, 1, Yemeni
2009-12-17: Hanaa Ali Mokbel Louqye, 6, Yemeni
2009-12-17: Mohammed Ali Mokbel Salem Louqye, 4, Yemeni
2009-12-17: Jawass Mokbel Salem Louqye, 15, Yemeni
2009-12-17: Sheikha Nasser Mahdi Ahmad Bouh, 3, Yemeni
2009-12-17: Soumaya Mohammed Saleh Mohammed, 9, Yemeni
2009-12-17: Shafika Mohammed Saleh Mohammed, 4, Yemeni
2009-12-17: Shafiq Mohammed Saleh Mohammed, 2, Yemeni
2010-01-03: Wajid Noor, 9, Pakistani
2010-01-08: Ayeesha, 3, Pakistani
2010-02-24: Naila, 10, Pakistani
2010-05-21: Fatima, ?, Pakistani
2010-05-21: Nisar, ?, Pakistani
2010-05-21: Naeem Khan, ?, Pakistani
2010-10-18: Naeem Ullah, 10, Pakistani
2011-06-15: Shahzada, ?, Pakistani
2011-10-14: Abdel-Rahman Anwar al-Awlaki, 16, American
2011-10-14: Ahmed Abdel-Rahman al-Awlaki, 17, Yemeni
2011-10-31: Tariq Aziz, 16, Pakistani
2011-10-31: Waheed, ?, Pakistani
2012-08-21: Osama Haqqani, 13, Pakistani
2012-09-02: Mabrook Mouqbal Al Qadari, 13, Yemeni
2012-09-02: Daolah Nasser, 10, Yemeni
2012-09-02: AbedalGhani Mohammed Mabkhout, 12, Yemeni

Don' guess you bothered to get the names and nationalities of the main targets of these attacks, did you Queenie?

 

[marvin martian]

you caught that too? This post AND the responses are a KEEPER. Bush's drone program was highly critisized by the left. But to their credit, some peace groups are not turning a blind eye.

[SIZE=-1]20,000 Airstrikes in the President's First Term Cause Death and Destruction From Iraq to Somalia.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Signed the NDAA into law - making it legal to assassinate Americans w/o charge or trial.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Initiated, and personally oversees a 'Secret Kill List'.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Waged war on Libya without congressional approval.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Started a covert, drone war in Yemen.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Escalated the proxy war in Somalia.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Escalated the CIA drone war in Pakistan.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Maintained a presence in Iraq even after "ending" the war.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Sharply escalated the war in Afghanistan.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Secretly deployed US special forces to 75 countries.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Sold $30 billion of weapons to the dictatorship in Saudi
Arabia.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Signed an agreement for 7 military bases in Colombia.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Opened a military base in Chile.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Signed the Patriot
Act extension into law.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Continued Bush's rendition
program.[/SIZE]

Yes, but ask the skull-punched Obamabots, and they'll tell you all that stuff is GOOD now!

 

[RedCloud]

North Korea recently made a video showing a missile attack on New York City. Should we attack them with drones?

No. I think a strategic bombing of their nuclear facilities would be more appropriate. N.Korea is a dangerous farce.

 

[NightSwimmer]

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.

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.

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. Why then, aren't you shocked that public opinion changed? Do private citizens have a special right to evolving opinions that does not apply to the President? Should a President campaign with an ironclad, unchanging position on every issue and then remain true to that position regardless of circumstances?

Idealism is nice, I suppose, but we don't actually live in an ideal world.

 

[ARMCX1]

Gramps, I think the issue of targeted killings by drones is finally receiving the attention it deserves. The UN will be holding hearings on extrajudicial killings, and CIA director nominee Brennan will certainly get a lot questions.

For what it's worth, IMO, the use of drones to kill combatants is illegal under international law and the current regime for approving the killing of Americans is possibly unconstitutional.

 

[Queen Titania]

Don' guess you bothered to get the names and nationalities of the main targets of these attacks, did you Queenie?

They were

 

[RedCloud]

My mother was a Londoner, she knew what it was to have bombs raining down never knowing if it would be her. My Grand mother remembered the Buzz Bombs ( first Drones ) of the first World War but both women, more especially my Ma felt for the women being bombed by us. All those men and women who knew War are leaving us too it now ...........are they taking empathy with them ?
It is normal for us to have stronger feelings for our own but to have none at all for others leaves us absolutely destitute and without hope.
The Government is as much of a danger to it's people as it is it's enemies people, it shows it's true character in its treatment of it's weakened, it's enemies and within its prisons.

Yeah, Queenie, we only shipped 15 million dollars worth of wheat to Yemen so we could fatten them up for the kill.

(Lost my link to the food shipment, but Google it if you like)

 

[Queen Titania]

Yeah, Queenie, we only shipped 15 million dollars worth of wheat to Yemen so we could fatten them up for the kill.

(Lost my link to the food shipment, but Google it if you like)

It will be of questionable quality it always is and they are never never never given a choice Jeeeeeeeez Aid my foot ! Yer aid you to a terrible death.......read the small print Red Cloud.

 

[LeRoy_Was_Here]

Gramps, I think the issue of targeted killings by drones is finally receiving the attention it deserves. The UN will be holding hearings on extrajudicial killings, and CIA director nominee Brennan will certainly get a lot questions.

For what it's worth, IMO, the use of drones to kill combatants is illegal under international law and the current regime for approving the killing of Americans is possibly unconstitutional.

The use of drones to kill combatants is certainly NOT "illegal under international law". I wonder where you get that idea. Why, precisely, should it be any more illegal than dropping large bombs from a manned bomber plane?

On the other hand, it IS possible that our courts might decide that our current regime for approving the killing of Americans who have joined an enemy force does not meet constitutional standards, and might require some revisions. Arkady and I have discussed such possible revisions, on occasion. I have no objection to common-sense revisions to HOW we are doing this. An example of a revision that would NOT be congruent with common sense would be requiring a unanimous vote of the American people before an American traitor could be killed. Even requiring a unanimous vote of Congress would not meet the common sense standard. But requiring, say, a two-thirds vote of an expanded National Security Council (expanded to include Congressional members of the opposition party) might be in keeping with common sense, and might in fact be a good idea.

 

[LeRoy_Was_Here]

No. I think a strategic bombing of their nuclear facilities would be more appropriate. N.Korea is a dangerous farce.

North Korea IS dangerous, but at this point, I don't think a strategic bombing of their nuclear facilities would be either 'appropriate' or 'justified'. This would be just another example of America applying a doctrine of pre-emptive attack, which was what was used to 'justify' the invasion of Iraq. Neo-conservatives love the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive attack. Reasonable Americans, though, do not.

 

[Arkady]

Wow. Simply wow. How many TROOPS did we have in Iraq at the time we apprehended Saddam Hussein? 200,000? 250,000? I don't know the exact number, but it hardly matters. You really are suggesting that to apprehend Anwar Al-Awlaki, we should have mounted a full-scale invasion of Yemen, probably requiring at a minimum, 100,000 fully armed soldiers and Marines.

That would have really 'endeared' us to the rest of the Islamic world, wouldn't it? We would have created 10,000 additional terrorists, in order to 'arrest' one.

I am very, VERY glad you're not in charge of anything, you know, IMPORTANT.

I don't buy for a moment that it would take 100,000 people on the ground to apprehend a single cleric. I'm not saying it would be as easy as it was for Israel to swoop in and grab Eichmann. But neither would it even be as difficult as apprehending Noriega (who was, after all, a head of state, with control over a nation's military, rather than just an American preacher with some number of paramilitary guards around him.) A raid to take Al-Awlaki captive would most likely resemble a cross between, say, Entebbe and the Zero Dark Thirty raid -- logistically difficult, with a serious risk of casualties, but still quite feasible with a relatively small force. Entebbe as probably more difficult -- they were trying to extract over 100 people alive, rather than just one -- but some of the other features were similar: that one involved 100 commandos who had to be flown thousands of miles, but with a lot fewer technical capabilities than we have.

Of course, an attempt to arrest him would have involved political risk. There might have been another "Black Hawk Down" scenario, like when we tried to apprehend some Aidid lieutenants, or a scenario akin to what we saw when we tried to apprehend David Koresh, or maybe the Ruby Ridge fiasco. Those are politically problematic for a president. In fact, something similar (the failed hostage rescue attempt under Carter) helped to bring down a presidency. So, why take the political risk? Why not just blow the whole compound up from the air and be done with it? Invent some absurd claim that it would have taken a hundred thousand boots on the ground to apprehend the guy, and count on your knee-jerk apologists to make your excuses for you. Why risk another Black Hawk Down, when nobody seems to object to extrajudicial killings?

 

[Arkady]

I don't buy the argument that in order for me to claim "principle" and be consistent, whatever complaint I may've registered as to Li'l Georgiean acts, I MUST level the same complaint in the case of a similar Obaman act.

The legislature makes law. The courts interpret law, and the executive enforces law. The fact that the presidency is an elected position, suggests that "enforcement" is a matter of perspective or opinion, not an absolute.

Let's take "warrantless wiretaps" as an example. We know that the 4th Amendment is by no means, absolute. Over the centuries, the courts have carved out all manner of exceptions, allowances, and workarounds. Whether or not any specific one of these rulings is righteous, is a matter of opinion. Nevertheless, the rulings ARE the rulings, until a court rules otherwise.

The courts have ruled that the warrantless wiretaps in question, are Constitutional. That's not to suggest that people shouldn't question their ruling or that they shouldn't prevail upon a specific president to pass on warrantless wiretaps even as they may be constitutional.

As to my opening then.....IF I expressed discomfort with Pres. L'il George's use of the warrantless wiretaps in question, am I bound to express the same discomfort in presumptive case of Pres. Obama's using them? I think not. Li'l George and Obama are very different. While I may not trust Li'l George to excercise this power in good faith, I MAY trust Obama to do so. And..that's why we have a presidential election every four years.

Yes, and your knee-jerk counterparts on the right can play the exact same game to justify thrashing Obama for things (like massive deficit spending) that they had no problem with in the Bush years. Bush, after all, was running up deficits in good faith, and they trusted him to do so responsibly, where Obama's very different, and is just looking to buy political supporters while sending the bill to future generations. Hypocrisy smells no sweeter on our side than theirs.

 

[Queen Titania]

The use of drones to kill combatants is certainly NOT "illegal under international law". I wonder where you get that idea. Why, precisely, should it be any more illegal than dropping large bombs from a manned bomber plane?

On the other hand, it IS possible that our courts might decide that our current regime for approving the killing of Americans who have joined an enemy force does not meet constitutional standards, and might require some revisions. Arkady and I have discussed such possible revisions, on occasion. I have no objection to common-sense revisions to HOW we are doing this. An example of a revision that would NOT be congruent with common sense would be requiring a unanimous vote of the American people before an American traitor could be killed. Even requiring a unanimous vote of Congress would not meet the common sense standard. But requiring, say, a two-thirds vote of an expanded National Security Council (expanded to include Congressional members of the opposition party) might be in keeping with common sense, and might in fact be a good idea.

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

 

[LeRoy_Was_Here]

Regarding suspending habeas corpus during wartime, the problem we have now is that, if you see the undeclared "war on terrorism" as a war, for purposes of suspending basic rights, those rights are effectively gone forever. It's a "war" in the same sense as the "war on drugs" (which, after all, has long included an international and paramilitary aspect). If you can throw suspected terrorists into jail indefinitely without trial or charge, or any habeas corpus hearing, because of the undeclared war on terrorism, why can't you throw suspected drug dealers into jail without trial the same way, because of the war on drugs? For that matter, could a president "disappear" an industrialist to Gitmo based on the war on poverty?

The war on terrorism is not going away. Any erosions we permit in its name are not like those during the Civil War and the world wars, that can be expected to sunset a few years down the road at some bright-line point of victory (or defeat). They become the new normal.

I can't imagine that's at all what the Founders had in mind. They would have been well aware of threats not too dissimilar to modern terrorism. In fact, many of them had some involvement in groups whose tactics would be labeled terrorism today. Take the Sons of Liberty, for example. They attacked people and property with the intent of influencing political outcomes. That's terrorism. So it's hard to imagine that the Founders would have seen that kind of activity as a reason to allow habeas corpus to be suspended indefinitely.

Just as another example of textbook terrorism that the founders would have been well familiar with, consider the gunpowder plot of Guy Fawkes. Can you picture a Madison or Jefferson standing up and saying the King has the right to throw anyone in jail indefinitely without a hearing if, in the King's sole discretion, that was necessary and proper for preventing another attempted attack like the one on the houses of Parliament?

Believe me, I certainly share your concerns about the seemingly endless nature of the 'War on Terror'. I don't know when it will end. I don't think anyone should pretend to know. But it IS a real war, nonetheless. We know that Al Qaeda has made repeated efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear warheads, chemical weapons, and biological weapons. Do you really doubt, for even a moment, that they would be gleeful to unleash such weapons on America?

I rather doubt that ANY of our Founding Fathers could have envisioned large airplanes being flown into skyscrapers. They had neither airplanes nor skyscrapers at the time. I rather doubt that any of our Founding Fathers could have envisioned genetically-engineered biological weapons. Perhaps you see them as being prophets, rather than merely unusally wise men.

 

[LeRoy_Was_Here]

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

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