• An informed, high-level official of the US government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the US
• Capture is infeasible and the US continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible
• The operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles
February 5, 2013
The Justice Department memo detailing when the U.S. can use drones to kill Americans.
The leaked document asserts that it's legal when:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
243 comments:
1 – 200 of 243 Newer› Newest»John Yoo, call your office.
I'm scratching my head, wondering how killing a citizen without a trial is supported in the Constitution.
The Constitution? What's that?
I look forward to the Obama-trolls defending this policy, not so dissimilar to Bush's policy they so vehemently protested.
It sounds reasonable to me. Maybe I should wait to read the snide remarks from Althouse readers before making up my mind.
Original Mike said...
"The Constitution? What's that?"
Should anyone with standing sue, and find their suit before the USSC, Chief Justice Roberts will surely rule the "penalty" of death by drone is really just a tax on participating with al-Qaeda or its allies in their war on the US.
I'd have no complaint if the drone sprayed red, white and blue confetti, afterwards.
"The Justice Department memo detailing when the U.S. can use drones to kill Americans."
Wouldn't it be easier just to revoke their Obamacare? No American can live without that.
Leftists wanna play it this way? Fine and dandy.
I just don't want to hear another fucking whine about waterboarding being torture.
Why aren't the media in an outrage over this? I haven't read one thing in my newspaper about it.
Try as I might, I just can't summon much outrage over drone killings. It is ironic that Obama likes them so, but I don't have to dislike them for that.
I am a Bush troll who thinks it was OK to do then and is OK to do now. Of course I did not pretend to be against this policy to further my chances of becoming the D candidate for president and then actually winning, assuming office, and having a chance to change it.
If the American citizen is a declared jihadi, then he has made himself a legitimate target.
This is one of the few areas where I can support Obama, despite Obama's . . . insincerity.
No active intelligence about a specific attack is needed to justify a targeted strike
Remember the whole "Bush said imminent threat!!!!" thingy/lie?
Yeah, me too.
A lawful killing in self-defense is not an assassination,” the white paper reads.
You Damn Right!
The law is what the President says it is, wingnutz!!!
I'm not much of a Jimmy Carter fan but... he was right.
Obama is a war criminal and murderer.
What he is doing is slowly going the way of Imperial Rome were murder in the name if Cesar was legal.
Actually, Ann, you left out the pre-existing criteria (which isn't really discussed)
The individual has to be a "operational leader of al-Qu'aida continually planning attacks"
Which is interesting, because they never discuss the question of the evidence needed to prove that.
The Government's rationale seems to me unnecessarily constrained. Imminent threat of violent attack is an absurd standard that can be met only by redefining "imminent" so as to make it meaningless.
In wartime, a sniper could target someone fighting for the enemy whether or not that person is a U.S. citizen. Wouldn't it be far more sensible to say that a state of hostilities exists between the United States and the organization known as al-Qaeda and that anyone acting for al-Qaeda is a valid target, whatever his or her citizenship? (Perhaps limit it to persons outside the territory of the United States to prevent the Government from assassinating citizens here.) That would build upon existing rules for war in a more reasoned way than the standard the Administration has adopted.
It sounds reasonable to me
I can sympathize with the need to get bad guys before they do their worst, but something like this needs to be at the very least much more transparent. I think it should apply only to terrorists who are actually indicted and tried (in abstentia if necessary) so that the bad guy has a chance to turn himself in for a military tribunal. Even then, I'm not too comfortable with it, although I recognize the possibility that I'd be far far less comfortable with what some of the bad guys can do.
I also know that if it weren't President Obama's policy, it would be talked about endlessly in the media, and not in a positive or even neutral light.
phx said...
It sounds reasonable to me
Of course it does. You're an intellectually incurious, not that bright, Obama voter.
Dick Cheney won the anti-terrorist policy argument awhile ago. Just like with gay marriage, Obama has come around to Cheney's views.
I've got no problem with this ruling.
What I have a problem with is the double standard from the left. Clutching their pearls when Bush effectively did the same thing, and now they're either silent or yelling, "Go team!"
Whatever. Nothing new in that.
Oh. And how's that closing of Gitmo coming along?
Yeah. Thought so.
"Try as I might, I just can't summon much outrage over drone killings."
Me neither. But then I (nor you, I imagine) didn't soil myself over Bush's war on terroists, either.
And Other Barry, why the secrecy?
If this is a Justice Department memo, you'd think the public would have access to it, or at least the memo was something that could be obtained with a FOIA request. That, you know, it's a federal government POLICY that addresses TARGETED KILLING.
The media's lack of curiosity is sweet. Much more important to focus on Michelle's big (not fat) ass.
Murder and assassination, but no water-boarding. Where's the outrage?
I think it should apply only to terrorists who are actually indicted and tried (in abstentia if necessary) so that the bad guy has a chance to turn himself in for a military tribunal.
You are a reasonable man, Patrick. The only argument I would make is if the attack is indeed "imminent" and there wasn't time for a criminal trial. I imagine such a scenario would be more likely than not. But I'm only speculating.
It's not illegal when the President does it.
Just in case the "snark font" wasn't working, my last comment was most definitely snark.
"An informed, high-level official of the US government"
Yeah....good luck with that! Are we going to name name's??
You are a reasonable man, Patrick. The only argument I would make is if the attack is indeed "imminent" and there wasn't time for a criminal trial. I imagine such a scenario would be more likely than not. But I'm only speculating.
There are a ton of problems with my solution, not the least of which is the one you cited. I don't like the idea at all of one guy or small group determining whether someone needs to be picked up and taken in, or just killed. Too easy to corrupt. Maybe there's someone I trust to do it right, but there's no one that will be trusted by everyone. Imminent can be such a vague term, and easily bendable depending upon the circumstances, especially politically.
I'm realist enough to recognize that yes there can be situations in which someone needs to be taken out immediately, because they're going to do something really bad. But the standard of proof needs to really high.
I hope my government will kill all the American al Qaeda operating abroad.
Can't be captured? Rules of water followed? Droning is okay with me then.
You are a reasonable man, Patrick
There goes whatever cred I had on Althouse.
You stinky faced poopyhead commie.
Haha... rules of water. WAR. Oops.
I think Obama should run some PSA's on Al Jazeera that highlight this policy.
Show the smiling jihadi and announce his name, then cut to grainy drone footage of the strike obliterating said jihadi.
Announcer says "This is Achmed. He's a jihadi who fucked with the United States." Boom.
Move to the next one, and the next, and so on and etc.
And then pick a closing line.
"Jihadis. It's fun while it lasts."
"Jihadis are dicks. Don't be a dick."
"Any questions?"
Followied by "This is Baack Obama, and I approve this message."
I'm about as far from an Obama fan as one can reasonably be, but this is a complex issue. My ancestors were Confederates, and the U.S. government dedicated a lot of effort to kill them. I doubt anyone decrying this report has a problem with the North's response in the Civil War. I don't, though I am fortunate that the federal government failed as to my specific ancestors.
This issue requires us to weigh threats. The Confederacy was a threat. I believe al Qaeda is a threat. I believe Islamists as a whole are threats. Anyone participating in the global jihad is an enemy of the United States, and I don't have a problem treating them as we treated Confederates.
I don't trust Obama. Lefties didn't trust Bush. So what? We can't suspend national defense because of domestic distrust.
IT'S STILL MURDER.
What pduggie notes is missing has always been my problem with the Obama's Administration's reasoning on this topic. The target has to be a Al Qaeda operative. Perhaps the many lawyers can help me on this...
In WWII, the US government revoked the citizenships of aviators that willingly choose to fly for the British in the "Battle of Britain" prior to US entering the war. The rational is that these "former" citizens took up arms for another nation's army.
Rather than discussing the killing of American citizens, why not just revoke their citizenship for taking up arms for a declared enemy of the United States? That rather clears up the issue of Bill of Rights protection. This type of power could be abused as well, but it has precedence.
The obvious problem with the policy is the loss of intelligence! Capture and interrogate is so evil, that vaporization is preferable? OK, but Panetta confirmed on MTP that those tactics led to bin Laden!
Another problem with the policy is the "collateral damage that is inherent! The 16 yr. old son was not a terrorist!
Looks like our courageous leader will make Nixon look like a piker!
The only argument I would make is if the attack is indeed "imminent"
Here's why bugs me about this rationale:
1. The terrorist is in Pakistan (or Mali, or Sudan or whatever).
2. An attack on the United States by said terrorist is imminent.
It is possible for #1 to be true. It is possible for #2 to be true. It is not possible for #1 and #2 to be true at the same time. If we were actually using these strikes to prevent imminent attacks on the United States they would be happening in places like Montreal or Tijuana or New York City -- not on some dusty mountainside in Upper Obscuristan.
And so long to the last vestigial tail of the 4th Amendment. And democracy in general. Fortunately, The One is in power so all of this is acceptable or, at worst, being misinterpreted by his enemies. At the ACLU.
IT'S STILL MURDER.
Right, Cookie. It's murder. But it's not murder murder.
Question for the lib types who're rationalizing the policy: does what the ACLU has to say about it bother you at all, or does blind obedience to Dear Leader triumph all?
IT'S STILL MURDER.
Some would say it is wrong to violate the rights of an individual just because doing so benefits society as a whole.
Sadly, few such people exist. That's why we have things like progressive taxation, laws against racial discrimination -- and extrajudicial killing of accused terrorists.
Once you concede to the government that society is more important than individual rights all that's left is negotiating over the *circumstances* under which the rights of the individual may be ignored.
Would it make any difference if the al-Qaeda "associate" is in the United States?
It's interesting that the "White Paper" is unsigned.
"not so dissimilar to Bush's policy"
I could be mistaken, so please point out to me the instance in which the Bush administration murdered an American citizen and then issued a press release crowing over it. At home or abroad, your choice.
Would it make any difference if the al-Qaeda "associate" is in the United States?
It's interesting that the "White Paper" is unsigned.
What is sauce for the gander, is sauce for the goose.
It is foolishness to embark on a kind of warfare that the enemy can employ more cheaply and effectively than you can.
And, oh yeah, there will be corruption, and we will have no way to tell what was "legitimate" - at least in the eyes of the Government - and what was not.
"I just don't want to hear another fucking whine about waterboarding being torture."
Murder by drone obviates the need for water boarding. Or interrogation in general.
Question for the lib types who're rationalizing the policy
There aren't a lot of liberals that defend it. Some of vocally against and some just stay quiet about it.
They have those ultra tiny drones now, they could expand the policy to torture by drone!
The little drone could have some sort of electric charged to it, like a taser, or some kind of modified bee venom dart (maybe those bullet ants), any number of things. Fly in, inflict pain and have a leaflet come out that says "stop being a jerk to the United States or more to come!"
Who's with me?
"Try as I might, I just can't summon much outrage over drone killings."
How about some outrage over the President working outside the law, then? Our country is extraordinary because of the Rule of Law. When the President can ignore the law, the whole thing will crumble.
The federal courts are already behaving in a similar way. Mandatory minimum sentences give prosecutors the power to pin the defendant between the MM and the "deal" on offer. Guilt or innocence have very little to do with our justice system under MM sentencing. When the vast majority of defendants take the plea agreement instead of going to trial, the prosecutor doesn't have to prove a damned thing. He/she can simply decide that someone is going to prison and that's exactly what happens.
So if you are going to be upset about the President ignoring the law, you can look closer to home for the same outrage.
Robert Cook,
Killing people in war, under the rules of war, is not murder.
Appreciate the legal truth sir!
garage:
why do they just stay quiet about it?
isn't there a saying...something something good men say nothing something something?
Hmm?
Nothing the government does ever stays at a basic level. Today...killing Americans who're off playing camel humper. Tomorrow...instead of sending US Marshals after Randy Weaver, nothing but an explosion, a smoking hole and a shrug.
It's fine now if you like the guy pulling the trigger, but what happens if we get a guy that drives libs mad in charge?
Have to go along with MadMan. Granted, that Constitution thing is an outmoded DWM piece of paper (except, of course, when it's a living document) and those Amendment things 4, 5, 6,, and 8 are more guidelines.
Like those Commandment things.
Ya wanna execute the guy?
Try him for treason.
Robert Cook said...
IT'S STILL MURDER.
For once, he's with the program.
Exactly how was the 16-year-old son of that crazy Imam an "imminent threat" when he wasn't even part of a jihadi group?
I have no problem capping declared enemies (whether wearing a uniform or not, in violation of the Geneva Convention), but our Commander in Chief has applied the drone solution to a few targets that, at this point, don't appear to meet the secret criteria (somewhat) revealed here. And yeah, it would be nice if Liberals lived by their own rules but they never have and they never will.
MadisonMan said...
I'm scratching my head, wondering how killing a citizen without a trial is supported in the Constitution.
=================
Ask Washington, Lincoln, FDR..
Washington was the first to order troops to defeat, kill if necessary, American citizens who became armed enemy in Shays Rebellion. And at first, wanted the ringleaders tried by a military tribunal and hanged.
Lincoln, of course....well, nobody killed as many US citizens w/o trial as Lincoln. Not even Hitler
Roosevelt endorsed military orders to treat US citizens that had been born in the US but who had returned to Germany, Italy, Austria and who were bearing arms against Americans to be targeted no different than other enemy. And along with Truman and Congress, was not too concerned about how many "US-born citizens!" in civilian parts of Japanese, Nazi, Fascist Italy society were on the receiving end of American terror bombing and strafing of civilian targets.
It basically makes sense. You are out trying to kill American citizens on behalf of an enemy, you are an enemy as well. Except you are also a traitor that maybe should get less mercy than a regular foreign national or internal rebel (the Confederates, various revolutionaries in other lands).
In fact, soldiers had a little more vigor when they were going after a group of Japanese and Filipino allies of Japan where turncoats existed. I know we made killing a US-born citizen who returned to Iraq and was in charge of a Republican Guard regiment a pet case to kill.
I can't wait for the protests to break out over this.
Look out, D.C.! Here they come!
Ann, make sure you and Meade cover the one's that are, no doubt, coming to Madison. And soon!
"If the American citizen is a declared jihadi, then he has made himself a legitimate target."
By your criterion, than any American citizen who is a declared murderer should simply be shot dead on sight...right?
In its way, this is an instance of 'three felonies a day' striking back at those in charge of the Gov't. The same impulse to have vague and general laws, subject to essentially unreviewable discretion to bring (or not bring) charges is in play here. It's also the same kind of thing that was at issue when Holder insisted on evaluating whether CIA operatives should be charged with crimes based on possible violations of the same kind of laws when they engaged in 'enhanced interrogation techniques.'
It would certainly be poetic justice if, after Team Obama is out of office, a new administration returned the favor. But it would also be a very dumb thing to do (as was Holder's exercise).
I imagine those Nobel Peace Prize Committee members are feeling a little silly these days, where it concerns Obama...
"But, but, but... He showed such promise!"
"Right, Cookie. It's murder. But it's not murder murder."
Uh, yes...it is.
Mike said...
Exactly how was the 16-year-old son of that crazy Imam an "imminent threat" when he wasn't even part of a jihadi group?
===========
The little shit had the unfortunate luck to be riding with a US citizen who happened to be Al Qaeda/Yemen's chief propagandist and recruiter. If killing him by missile meant the little shit enemy spawn working with him had to be whacked...so what?
That is without question an acceptable level of collateral damage during a military mission.
""I just don't want to hear another fucking whine about waterboarding being torture."
Waterboarding is torture, and this policy is murder.
Revenant,
It is possible for 1 and 2 to both be true, if the attack is against an US Embassy or military base in that country, but then, "What does it matter?" seems to be the latest State Department take on such attacks. So perhaps you are right.
"The little shit had the unfortunate luck to be riding with a US citizen who happened to be Al Qaeda/Yemen's chief propagandist and recruiter. If killing him by missile meant the little shit enemy spawn working with him had to be whacked...so what?
That is without question an acceptable level of collateral damage during a military mission."
So, I guess if your child just happens to be in close proximity to someone whom the government wishes to kill and your child is shot down or blown up you will accept this as "an accetpable level of collateral damage during a military mission."
it's not murder murder.
It's murdery.
I get a chuckle when Commies like Cookie get their dudgeon up over government sanctioned murder.
I guess it depends on the situation. If its an American citizen living abroad among the enemy I think the answer is pretty clear. There were a number of Bundists that went back to the Fatherland when WW2 broke out and we had no compunction in killing them.
On the other hand if its an American jihadi plotting in his Des Moines garage, I think capture is feasible and warranted.
Drone Strike or Waterboarding...
I know which one I'd prefer to happen to me.
The rest of the cerebral posturing by our "betters" is sound and fury....
@Chef,
Define "government."
Waterboarding is torture, and this policy is murder.
Aw, Cookie. You're such a moralistic naif.
One thing to remember on contingency planning like this is the more you define the situation the less likely you will be sucessful in implementing the process because you really cannot asses the threat and reaction options until they are in real time. This is the result of the burgeoning bureaucracy wanting to "have a plan" than in having the boundaries of who and when the decision makers are and decide action.
When the real situation occurs they won't know how to react if not as defined. Instead of reaponsible leaders making tough decisions in real time we will have bureaucrats hiding behind a plan.
Think Benghazi for an example of why we need people to make tough decisions in real time. That is why we had four Americans murdered while Obama and his team watched.
I don't like the idea at all of one guy or small group determining whether someone needs to be picked up and taken in, or just killed. Too easy to corrupt. Maybe there's someone I trust to do it right, but there's no one that will be trusted by everyone. Imminent can be such a vague term, and easily bendable depending upon the circumstances, especially politically.
I'm realist enough to recognize that yes there can be situations in which someone needs to be taken out immediately, because they're going to do something really bad. But the standard of proof needs to really high.
===================
Get real. The decision to kill or maim an enemy is done at an individual level at times in war, and even in the best of situations done with command setting targets and ROE perhaps with a lawyer with them hundreds or thousands of miles way from the vicinity of lethal force being implimented by soldiers or pilots or navy people.
"The standard of proof needs to be really high"????
You are talking war, not the absurd criminal justice in a courtroom standard the left wants applied if a single hair is mussed on an enemy head when Republicans are in charge...
We could also use human snipers to shoot them in the back after they drop their kids off at school.
That sounded ugly didn't it?
Well when the Killer is on the other end of a joystick some where on the other side of the world, the perceived separation of distance is somehow supposed to make it ok?
Looks like obama adopted the policy of that quick-to-act surfer dude. He knew what to do when the doing needed done.
Smash! Smash! Suh-mash!
Interviews and questions later, dude. Now's not the time to argue about process.
Hatchet or no hatchet. That's the question.
The Confederacy was a threat. I believe al Qaeda is a threat. I believe Islamists as a whole are threats. Anyone participating in the global jihad is an enemy of the United States, and I don't have a problem treating them as we treated Confederates.
The Confederacy was a threat to the extent they wanted to secede from the Union. Maybe my reading of the war was different but I don't think wanton destruction of the North was a war goal.
FTW Tweet from Iowahawk:
"Is it okay to waterboard somebody who's on fire from a drone strike? #AsktheDOJ"
OMG I'm on the same side as Cook!
Seriously, my fellow conservatives who are looking for consistency can take Robert Cook at his word here...and find some. I don't believe waterboarding is torture, but I agree with Cook that this "policy" such as it is, is simply license to kill inconvenient people. It fails to cover the situations in which our drones have already taken out supposed enemies. It's a powerful tool that in the grand history of this Republic would seem to require at least a little more transparency and oversight. Perhaps a signed memo from DOJ or such would be a good start.
Well when the Killer is on the other end of a joystick some where on the other side of the world, the perceived separation of distance is somehow supposed to make it ok?
If they're an imminent threat to our country and its people I don't have a problem killing them in the back or the front, close at hand or real far away. As long as it's legal.
A jihadi who is embarking on a murder mission - kill them. You can justify your actions to Armed Forces Committee and I'll be happy.
"Maybe my reading of the war was different but I don't think wanton destruction of the North was a war goal."
Which is why the Confederacy lost and Grant won. Deliberate destruction until the enemy stops fighting has historically been the way all wars have been won.
At one point, all you had to do was capture the king/emperor.
Your point is certainly valid after 1860, however.
So, I guess if your child just happens to be in close proximity to someone whom the government wishes to kill and your child is shot down or blown up you will accept this as "an accetpable level of collateral damage during a military mission."
If I was joining up with terrorists with the intention of attacking the United States I would not bring my kid along with me.
Where are the Protests?
Where is Code Pink?
/sarc
They answer to the President -- there will be no changes in policy.
"Israel" mentioned 166 times at Hagel hearing. "Drones", zero.
"If the American citizen is a declared jihadi, according to n informed, high-level official of the US governmentt with zero oversight, then he has made himself a legitimate target."
FTFY.
This is a license to murder anyone that pisses you off, with a little bit of GWOT bunting to make it quasi-palatable. American citizenship is the bright line. If you murder a French citizen, you've got the French apparatus of government to seek justice for you. When your own government, who's only real and objective function is defending your rights, decides it can kill you at will, then you're officially fucked. With the government's resources, after you're dead, I could make anyone look like OBL's college roommate.
This is why both parties are basically unless. They're both all about freedom, until it's for someone they nominally dislike, and then principles fly out the window.
Revenant said...
The only argument I would make is if the attack is indeed "imminent"
Here's why bugs me about this rationale:
1. The terrorist is in Pakistan (or Mali, or Sudan or whatever).
2. An attack on the United States by said terrorist is imminent.
It is possible for #1 to be true. It is possible for #2 to be true. It is not possible for #1 and #2 to be true at the same time. If we were actually using these strikes to prevent imminent attacks on the United States they would be happening in places like Montreal or Tijuana or New York City -- not on some dusty mountainside in Upper Obscuristan.
==============
You are applying bad logic because your mental picture of "immenent" is quite different than the broader definition in the memo.
Your personalized vision appears to be that only when someone is actually shooting at you or when Mohammed Atta finally put his plane on an actual collision course with the WTC was a valid definition of 'immenent' satisfied.
In truth, an enemy out for harming the US must go through multiple steps that culminate in actual end force used against Americans. In war, vs. silly civilian criminal justice.....the threat is defended against by hitting the enemy at any of the steps from conception to execution of attack.
You can't fight and win a war if you say, confine yourself to only firing on those that fire artillery shells at you..While leaving all the steps the enemy takes that end up with a shell coming to shred your ass and your pal's asses alone as "not really an immenent enemy danger."
No one is going to die right away because some chemical plant of the enemy is nitrating phenols. Nor are the innocent civilian women assembling bombs in a factory or a radical Muslim bomb-making house a threat to personally kill Americans. The shells being transported by train are no immenent threat while still on the train, and the enemy artillery positions or team being assembled to place and rig the IED are no immediate danger if they are not occupied firing shells or putting the bomb under the roadside..
The military sees all that as targetable steps that form part of the immenent threat. Kill the artillery crew before they can fire shells beats trying to kill them during and after they ravage your position. Even better is to blow up the shell/bomb factory with the innocent enemy civilians making them, perhaps even a technical US citizen or too working making the bombs.
The only analog in the silly and misplaced criminal justice system that is similar is "conspiracy" and the statutes on that are deliberately crafted by lawyers to stand apart from immenent or actual criminal felonios actions...
Yes, it is murder. It's also war. The rules are not the same for enemy combatants during war, declared or undeclared, when we have soldiers in harm's way. Just as the prisoners in Guantanamo are not subject to US criminal law, but to the rules of war.
It's a war power, not a criminal power.
Obama has it.
If you don't like it, you can impeach him, or leave it up to the voters next time.
That's the check and balance on it.
Well Cookie, we seem to be in the minority here, but these other fellers should ponder why it is that we do not use poison gas and we do not assassinate the leaders of enemy nations, even in wartime.
In the past our enmies have of course been nation states, but somehow I don't think western legal niceties like that means much to the jihadisti.
Some of vocally against and some just stay quiet about it.
The only liberals who are vocal against Obama's policy are the crickets.
DRONING
DROWNING
The difference? No W.
"No active intelligence about a specific attack is needed to justify a targeted strike."
Now think about this.
Obama decides those who oppose him are 'enemies' of the state for the very fact they oppose him. So drone strike? After all, no active intelligence about a specific attack is needed to justify, right?
You see once you pass off the lie you can kill your own citizens if they are classified as terrorist, even if just outside the U.S., then one day it will be INSIDE the U.S.
Then later what the definition of 'enemy' becomes expanded.
And that is where we are heading. Throughout history kings have beheaded what they suspected were traitors and many times without trial.
This whole thing stinks of a imperial power grab.
I'd be cool with it if Obama was just man enough to admit that he's using every national security policy Dick Cheney ever thought of. That won't happen of course, because statists are lying hypocrites.
The only liberals who are vocal against Obama's policy are the crickets.
My liberal Twitter timeline is 99% against drones. But then again I have impeccable fucking taste in all things.
The president's claimed unilateral authority to kill whomever he wishes whenever he wishes is a claim of tyrannical power, and we all should be very, very afraid.
Good on Robert Cook for consistency. Still, 99.9 percent of the whining from 2001 to 2008 was partisan emoting.
"If they're an imminent threat to our country and its people I don't have a problem killing them in the back or the front, close at hand or real far away. As long as it's legal."
How can an individual be an "imminent threat" to this country, wherever he may be? An invading army may be an imminent threat, but unless an individual has his button on a nuclear trigger that will launch a fleet of nukes at us, he cannot be "imminent threat" to this "country" no matter who claims him to be.
How is the "legality" determined? By the President, acting on his own judgment? Not legal. By a Star Chamber, deciding in secret and advising the President? Not legal.
You're simply accepting the dictats of a "dear leader" that this person or that is a mortal enemy who must be killed. Once you accept this, you cannot repudiate his right to kill, torture, or imprison anyone, anywhere, for any reason. You or your children can be killed, tortured, or disappeared and you will have no standing to deny his right to do so, as you have accepted in principle his right to make such ad hoc adjudications of guilt.
"If I was joining up with terrorists with the intention of attacking the United States I would not bring my kid along with me."
How do you know the people the President wants to kill (or has killed) or terrorists? Because he says so?
Paul said...
"No active intelligence about a specific attack is needed to justify a targeted strike."
Now think about this.
Obama decides those who oppose him are 'enemies' of the state for the very fact they oppose him. So drone strike? After all, no active intelligence about a specific attack is needed to justify, right?
You see once you pass off the lie you can kill your own citizens if they are classified as terrorist, even if just outside the U.S., then one day it will be INSIDE the U.S.
===============
Spare us your attack of the vapors.. And the slippery slope argument, because if that was valid we would have long ago been a jackbooted fascist state killing political opponents and soccer moms here for the fun of it - after what Washington did in the SHays Rebellion, Lincoln in the Civil War, and what we did targeting enemy that held technical US citizenship in WWII.
You seem to want a civilian courtroom pondering evidence of a specific attack..with of course the enemy fed details of all the intelligence we have on the specific attack to better defend his "precious enemy rights" against getting whacked as enemy without trial....
We can get into trouble if our military and commander in chief are paralyzed by lawyers demanding to know what SPECIFIC ATTACK on US troops in America al-Awkaki was working on with his recruits. Major Hasan? What evidence?
Or Benghazi..what SPECIFIC ATTACK that the Al Qaeda supported Jihadist group had in planning that would justify hitting them before they hit the Ambassador or the Consulate? What if there were enemy killers in the Jihadist group that had Precious US Citizenship!!!
Wouldn't the legally safest thing to do, lacking absolute proof no jihadists with US citizenship were present, or the exact target.....would be to do nothing? After all, that is why we didn't get bin Laden in the Clinton Administration - knowing he was out to kill Americans but lacking the evidence that lawyers demanded so it could all be proven in a civilian court.
How can an individual be an "imminent threat" to this country, wherever he may be? An invading army may be an imminent threat, but unless an individual has his button on a nuclear trigger that will launch a fleet of nukes at us, he cannot be "imminent threat" to this "country" no matter who claims him to be.
I agree with you on this issue, Cook, but a guy with a cell phone can trigger a bomb. Can they do it from miles away? Not sure how the mobile trigger technology works, but if it's calling a particular number, then I'm sure it could occur from a distance.
An informed, high-level official of the US government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the US
So there's gonna be a drone war over Chicago?
How can an individual be an "imminent threat" to this country, wherever he may be? An invading army may be an imminent threat, but unless an individual has his button on a nuclear trigger that will launch a fleet of nukes at us, he cannot be "imminent threat" to this "country" no matter who claims him to be.
What a crippled imagination you possess. Are you suggesting that there can't be an imminent threat unless it's a threat to destroy the whole country? Seriously? So, if they only threaten to blow up NYC, that's not an imminent threat to the country?
As for individuals, what about the guys masterminding or coordinating such attacks? Are they not part of it? The attack in Mumbai was coordinated in real-time by handlers in Pakistan-- If India had found this out prior to the attack, would they not be justified in trying to kill these people preemptively?
Drone debate:
Are these guys unusually bad people?
Yes?
OK.
When it comes to national security the left does all the bad things the right is accused of doing, plus more. Except they do it all badly, inconsistently, and carelessly. Because they see no need for the reflection and self-doubt that the right is required to labor under.
At best they'll manage a crude imitation of a workable strategy. If we're lucky, it might barely suffice until someone takes over who actually understands what's happening. I don't feel very lucky.
My liberal Twitter timeline is 99% against drones.
So this is vocal in the same way as marching in the streets, and carrying effigies of Obama with numerous Nazi references?
Drumbeating editorials in Op-Eds and on TV?
Your Twitter timeline?!?
Weak...cheese...
Too many loopholes. Needs a little fixing.
• if the president is Democrat, then whenever the president thinks so, feels like, or has the impulse.
• if the president Republican then only after such requests pass the House and then with Senate Approval, the media has a crack at the specific target, and following all legal challenges.
• if the president Republican then only after such requests pass the House and then with Senate Approval, the media has a crack at the specific target, and following all legal challenges.
I feel so sorry for you Republicans.
"I agree with you on this issue, Cook, but a guy with a cell phone can trigger a bomb."
Blowing up a bomb by remote is a bad thing but it is not an imminent threat to "the country."
Besides, how would those charged with killing terrorists via drone know who had such a triggering device or when he was going to trigger it?
Frankly, the President is using the rhetoric of fear to compel acquiescence to his criminal and tyrannical claims of this klling authority.
Blowing up a bomb by remote is a bad thing but it is not an imminent threat to "the country."
I was referring to a bomb in the country
Besides, how would those charged with killing terrorists via drone know who had such a triggering device or when he was going to trigger it?
Intelligence gathered by water-boarding!
C'mon man, keep up! ; )
Your Twitter timeline?!?
I'm only one guy. But I could throw you hundreds of links to liberal websites/mags denouncing the use of drones. I'm not sure what righties could produce in the way of articles from conservatives against the Iraq war.
Righties were pretty much for the Iraq war. Maybe you missed the hypocrisy angle here.
we do not assassinate the leaders of enemy nations, even in wartime.
We don't? Or wouldn't if the opportunity presented itself?
Killing our own by drone makes waterboarding others look like a Slip 'n Slide.
chickelit - context, think context.
We don't? Or wouldn't if the opportunity presented itself?
As I recall the US came awfully close to getting Sadam on the first night of Desert Storm. Which would have been fine with THIS American citizen. But, c'est la guerre.
Blowing up a bomb by remote is a bad thing but it is not an imminent threat to "the country."
Depending on the bomb.
No, Colonel, we don't.
Has nothing to do with chivalry; our leaders just want to avoid tit for tat.
I'm only one guy. But I could throw you hundreds of links to liberal websites/mags denouncing the use of drones.
That's admirable but it didn't stop liberals from voting for him. Evidently lady parts trumps murder by drone?
Might want to take a harder look at that Second Amendment
No, Colonel, we don't. Has nothing to do with chivalry; our leaders just want to avoid tit for tat.
You don't think we wouldn't have taken out Hitler or Hirohito if given the chance?
The Constitution? What's that?
An old wooden sailing ship, now a tourist attraction in Massachusetts.
That's admirable but it didn't stop liberals from voting for him.
I imagine it stopped plenty of liberals from voting for him.
That said, Obot bloggers and MSNBC cheerleaders are the worst.
It is possible for 1 and 2 to both be true, if the attack is against an US Embassy or military base in that country
That's not an attack on the United States, that's an attack on US military forces stationed abroad. It doesn't even qualify as "terrorism", really.
That's admirable but it didn't stop liberals from voting for him.
There was no viable candidate opposed to extrajudicial killing of American citizens. Who were the concerned liberals supposed to vote for?
It's not left vs right. It's the fascist political class against the people.
Your personalized vision appears to be that only when someone is actually shooting at you or when Mohammed Atta finally put his plane on an actual collision course with the WTC was a valid definition of 'immenent' satisfied.
I concede that you're probably dumb enough to derive that meaning from my statement, Cedarford.
Colonel Angus said...
No, Colonel, we don't. Has nothing to do with chivalry; our leaders just want to avoid tit for tat.
You don't think we wouldn't have taken out Hitler or Hirohito if given the chance?
====================
Hitler yes, Hirohito no.
Royal family was too important to our plans after the war to wipe them out in regicide. We would have likely been confronted with warring factions as bad as what we got in Iraq ...
We had a pretty impressive Tokyo bombing campaign that spared the royal palaces and grounds while rubblizing everything else.
In the AF, they showed us pictures, amazing pics, of the Emperor's lands and the devestation that started 100 meters past the grounds - an early example of precision bombing...
Hitler could have been taken out, but many military historians have concluded that if we had done so, we would have strengthened Germany. The German military with Operation Valkyrie and other plots, had concluded themselves that Hitler was a fucking disaster by late 1942, and the drive of the German officers to whack him was more about ridding themselves of incompetence, bettering negotiating positions, and saving people of the Reich - than "saving" enemy populations or "precious rights".
It is not about being "given the chance," Colonel. We would indeed have killed Hitler or Tojo if we could catch them with a general bombing run, or some other military action, but by assassination, no.
The closest we came to that was when we shot down Admiral Yamamoto over the Pacific in WWII, and it is still difficult to get the Pentagon to admit that he was deliberately targeted as an individual.
The resident fascist approves.
Remember the "fierce moral urgency of change"?
Yeah, that was bullshit.
Obama drones and the left condones
It has been argued that ever since the French Revolution, the left has been fascinated by state violence and executions. This latest White Paper adds some credibility to this argument.
Is it clarified anywhere that these people cannot be in the US when struck?
It has been argued that ever since the French Revolution, the left has been fascinated by state violence and executions. This latest White Paper adds some credibility to this argument.
It's not a penalty, it's a tax.
No evidence needed. Just the government's opinion.
Why not just say, yeah, it's a murder but you're AQ so we're going to do it anyway.
The emperor gets to pick who is on the outs for what reason.
I made a subtle and idle threat to use my Second Amendment rights if needed to defend my First Amendment rights. I'm probably on a list somewhere and OK to murder.
Anyone caught with a Gadsden flag or a tea bag likewise.
Leland said:
"In WWII, the US government revoked the citizenships of aviators that willingly choose to fly for the British"
Do you have any detail on this? First I've heard of it. The Flying Tigers (AVG) did not lose their citizenship flying for the Chinese.
Nishakawa did not lose his citizenship for serving in the Japanese army in WWII. State Dept tried to take it away but the Supremes said they couldn't.
As far as I can tell citizenship cannot ever be taken away. It can be renounced but even that requires the renouncer to jump though a lot of hoops (See Perez v. Dulles)
So I'd like to see some specifics if you have them.
John Henry
Hagar said: "It is foolishness to embark on a kind of warfare that the enemy can employ more cheaply and effectively than you can."
True enough, except when, as is now the case, the enemy is already embarked on the war. Our only choice is whether to fight back.
We are locked in a generations-long conflict with Islamism, because Islamism is locked in a generations-long conflict with us. It is politically incorrect to admit it, but that does not undercut the reality.
Speaking of drones, the city of Charlottesville VA just voted to ban drone flights and sort of banned drone usage by the city.
John Henry
I made a subtle and idle threat to use my Second Amendment rights if needed to defend my First Amendment rights. I'm probably on a list somewhere and OK to murder
Giving POTUS all those powers after 9/11 was a bad idea in retrospect, eh? Nobody would listen to the dirty fucking hippies though.
phx said...
But, c'est la guerre.
C'était la guerre -- UN approved even.
On the plus side, Obama's aggressive use of drones has saved hundreds of jihadi types the horrors of waterboarding or imprisonment at Gitmo.
What does this memo have to do with Bush or powers we gave POTUS after 9/11?
I see that no, it is not specified the target must be outside of the US.
Imagine that.
Hilaire Belloc nailed it in 1938 re the ascendancy of Islam.
Technology differences can and are being overcome.
Garage mahal wrote:
"There aren't a lot of liberals that defend it. Some of vocally against and some just stay quiet about it."
I guess the ones staying quiet are ok with it being done in their name.
Right?
And lets be honest, when comparing the the groups it's quite clear that those being silent is a much larger group than those being vocal, no?
MayBee said...
What does this memo have to do with Bush or powers we gave POTUS after 9/11?
Garage is just thinking ahead to a time when another Republican president usurps more of his rights and is giving us an out: well Obama did it!
garage mahal self identified: Nobody would listen to the dirty fucking hippies though.
Giving POTUS all those powers after 9/11 was a bad idea in retrospect, eh? Nobody would listen to the dirty fucking hippies though.
That's interesting because the silence of those dirty ****ing hippies is evident in the matter of targeting Americans while loudly demanding we give up our Second Amendment rights.
And lets be honest, when comparing the teo groups ots quiteclear that those being silent is a much larger group than those being vocal, no?
We don't even have the white paper hard copies yet do we? It's been kept secret. It hasn't been talked about at all in the media. It is now though, and we'll see where all the tortured rationalizations are coming from.
It's not the same country I grew up in I know that.
Garage mahal wrote:
garage mahal self identified: Nobody would listen to the dirty fucking hippies though.
well that would assume they are in fact talking. Yet, as has been shown, the dirty f‘Ing hippies apparently don't give a shit. It's only when Bush is in power that they do. So, if you want to know why people don't listen to the hippies its because there's a perception that they are in fact full of crap.
That's interesting because the silence of those dirty ****ing hippies is evident in the matter of targeting Americans while loudly demanding we give up our Second Amendment rights.
Dirty hippies and a few libertarians are the only groups I know that have/are speaking out against these extra-judicial powers. And really, DFH's are demanding that you give up your Second Amendment rights? Please.
Speaking of dirty f'ing hippies, where's Ritmo?
Yet, as has been shown, the dirty f‘Ing hippies apparently don't give a shit
Stop. It hasn't been shown. Obama/Feinstein/Lieberman/Schumer et al are not dirty fucking hippies. I would argue they're moderate Republicans, but that's beside the point. They are all detrimental to your rights, that's not in question.
1+0 ≠ 2!
Yet, as has been shown, the dirty f‘Ing hippies apparently don't give a shit.
The left-wingers I know -- and I live in California, so I've met one or two -- are PISSED THE FUCK OFF about the drone killing. However, they quite reasonably believed that Romney would double-down on the drone killing and do who-knows-what besides. Certainly Romney's attempts to cast himself as more hawkish than Obama didn't help there.
Basically, they're like small-government types in the 2000s -- yeah, Bush was absolutely *horrific* on fiscal responsibility, but there was good reason to believe Gore and Kerry would be worse.
Garage mahal wrote:
Stop. It hasn't been shown. Obama/Feinstein/Lieberman/Schumer et al are not dirty fucking hippies. I would argue they're moderate Republicans, but that's beside the point. They are all detrimental to your rights, that's not in question.
it goes without saying that the liberal politicians are utter hypocrites. I'm talking about the protest kids, the liberal left and all the other speaking truth to power types that turned antiBushism into a moral crusade. They could care less either. Which makes the the biggest hypocrites of all.
They had their chance to speak truth to power but decided not to. (With a few exceptions). Now they should forever hold their peace.
Obama's claim that he has the right to kill American citizens who are terrorist threats overseas will soon be followed by the claim that the Tea Party is a terrorist threat at home, deserving of the same penalty, as our owners of semi-automatic assault weapons.
American citizens are in danger from their own government. Why else would Homeland Security be buying billions of rounds of ammo?
We are locked in a generations-long conflict with Islamism, because Islamism is locked in a generations-long conflict with us.
Regardless of whether or not that is true, "assassinating a few dozen loud-mouthed Muslims per year" is not going to do anything to bring that conflict to a close.
Especially since our entire justification for the killing is "they were planning to attack us. Really. We totally swear."
That story wouldn't even work on most of the NON-Muslims in the world, let alone the billion Muslims. Fairly or not, the perception is that the US government is totally willing to make shit up to justify war on Muslim nations. Now, we can bitch about how that's not fair and the people who think that way are big doodyheads, but the reality is that neutral observers perceive our behavior as "killing fundamentalist Muslims for what they believe".
If there were imminent attacks planned, fine. Present the proof. Don't hinge the success of the war effort on the people of the world trusting American politicians not to lie.
Rev,
So basically your buddies are now neocons. Isn't it funny how everyone in power always resorts to Bush's default position on war? perhaps that's because its the right position.
Your buddies came to it out of pragmatism or expediency, but they still came to it.
And next time a repub does the same, they can shut their mouth like they're doing now.
If the only time you voice moral outrage is when its convenient for you, then your moral outrage ain't worth shit.
I have respect for guys like glen Greenwald even though I don't agree with much of what he has to say. Your friends in CA are a bunch of pussies.
Rev wrote:
Regardless of whether or not that is true, "assassinating a few dozen loud-mouthed Muslims per year" is not going to do anything to bring that conflict to a close.
Especially since our entire justification for the killing is "they were planning to attack us. Really. We totally swear."
Except Al Qaeda is at war with us.and planning on attacking us. Now, was every single guy blown up by Obamas drone strike personally involved in a plot to kill us? I can't prove that.
But the organization certain is aligned against us. Taking out the orgsnization requires taking out the upper echelon, the planners but also those who rally to their cause.
well, kill lists seem to titillate and excite Obama.
Revenant said...
It is possible for 1 and 2 to both be true, if the attack is against an US Embassy or military base in that country
That's not an attack on the United States, that's an attack on US military forces stationed abroad. It doesn't even qualify as "terrorism", really.
===============
Speaking of stupid, Revenent, I think you really are with your anal fixation on what is immenent and what is an attack on the US proper leading you down a road of asinine standards.
An attack on an embassy is an attack on America.
An attack on a territory of the US ouside the US is an attack on America.
An attack on US troops and military assets outside America, at a place like Pearl Harbor, is an attack on America.
All fall under legitimate cause for war, by international law. Those that do so, are enemy that can be killed w/o trial.
Not when lawyers dressed in robes issue diktats from marble courthouses...but if Congress wants it.
When they can kill you without due legal process what freedoms do you have?
"Maybe my reading of the war was different but I don't think wanton destruction of the North was a war goal."
That's the difference between an army that features Gen. Sherman and one that doesn't.
Obama/Feinstein/Lieberman/Schumer et al are not dirty fucking hippies.
No, they're too old to copulate and have been known to shower. But, yeah, they're still hippies inside.
I would argue they're moderate Republicans, but that's beside the point.
Not hardly likely!
They are all detrimental to your rights, that's not in question.
Well thank you for that concession.
I'm sure many future victims of authoritarians laughed off and joked about the early power grabs and abuses of their future abusers.
Why else would Homeland Security be buying billions of rounds of ammo?
Maybe they're just thinking of locking down Chicago and the aftermath.
I imagine it stopped plenty of liberals from voting for him.
That might be true considering his vote total dropped from 08 to 12.
So basically your buddies are now neocons. Isn't it funny how everyone in power always resorts to Bush's default position on war? perhaps that's because its the right position.
I gave myself a brain cramp just trying to get that to make sense. Pass.
And really, DFH's are demanding that you give up your Second Amendment rights? Please.
I've heard it from the clean ones too. Perhaps you run in small circles.
At the end of the day Obama would like to have all the powers of a dictator, which means Obama would like to be a dictator. BTW a large number of Obama supporters would like Obama to rule as a dictator too. But only because Republicans are radical, evil, anti-women, racist bigot homophobes, who want mass murderers to have military assault weapons and the wealthy to have all the money.... so it's the reasonable solution to stop Republican evil
Obama/Feinstein/Lieberman/Schumer et al are not dirty fucking hippies. I would argue they're moderate Republicans...
When Obama and Feinstein are considered 'moderate Republicans' you're either joking or somewhere to the left of Fidel Castro.
Revenent is so into wanting to cast Obama as a 2nd Hitler out to kill innocent Americans, to further his partisan politics and do payback for how the Left shredded the idiot Bush and his neocon pals.
But he is following right where the Left did in defending precious enemy rights...right to giving the enemy aid and comfort.
Wanting enemy to be left free to do things unless we have "clear evidence of a specific attack moments from launching or underway".
Revenant is willing to defend Islamists' right to murder people for being an Infidel. I'm not surprised.
Does these dudes look peaceful?
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/05/16856963-american-drone-deaths-highlight-controversy?lite
When Obama and Feinstein are considered 'moderate Republicans' you're either joking or somewhere to the left of Fidel Castro.
Well, on this issue of executive powers and state secrecy there is no daylight between Feinstein, Obama, and hard core right wing Republicans. Or Fidel Castro I imagine.
Between Cedarford and Kyle, Revenant is a populist!
Hey garage mahal, why don't you go back hunting for evil Koch Brothers by checking under every pebbles for Koch Brothers'evil plan that make politicians impose low-taxes on people? That is scary thing happened to USA, man.
Except Al Qaeda is at war with us.and planning on attacking us.
On 9/11, and for years afterwards, I believed that. But at this point it just isn't credible.
The reality is that entering the United States illegally is incredibly easy and basically undetectable. Building weapons capable of killing lots of Americans, also easy and undetectable. So... where are the domestic terrorist attacks? Why has nobody, say, stuck a black powder bomb lined with ball bearings on a Greyhound bus? Played rooftop sniper at a fifth-grade soccer game? Set off a suicide bomb at the O'Hare ticket counter on Thanksgiving weekend?
One nut with a stolen gun killed more people in a single afternoon than AQ has managed in a decade. It is not rationally possible to believe that the same US government that can't keep cocaine and heroin from crossing the border somehow has a 100% track record stopping Muslim terrorists from doing so.
EMD, defending Islamists and their precious Islamic Government's right to murder people for being an Infidel or different views is populist? Wow who knew? Next thing is you might tell me thst Islamic Government respect womens' rights.
This from the Obama administration on the idea of going to war only when there is an imminent threat:
"…the condition that an operation leader present an “imminent” threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future. Given the nature of, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, in which civilian airliners were hijacked to strike the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, this definition of imminence, which would require the United States to refrain from action until preparations for an attack are concluded, would not allow the United States sufficient time to defend itself."
Now you tell us! But seriously, what's the problem with the so called Bush doctrine again? Why then would there be an issue going to war in Iraq again?
This, by the way is the guy that you voted for TWICE libs. And here they are essentially peddling the Bush doctrine.
It's like that other post on Althouse about how makers of Toyota came to the conclusion after spending billlions that in fact electric cars don't work.
Well, yeah!
Similarly it turns out that we don't have to wait till an attack is imminent before going to war. Well, yeah! this definition of imminence, which would require the United States to refrain from action until preparations for an attack are concluded, WOULD not allow the United States sufficient time to defend itself.
So the libs were wrong all along and talking out of their ass all along?
Why yes.
Rev wrote:
On 9/11, and for years afterwards, I believed that. But at this point it just isn't credible
THat shows that we have decimated them and are bringing them to their knees. That doesn't mean they didnt' pose a threat or still don't.
It just means we are doing a good job keeping the threat in check.
Revenant is willing to defend Islamists' right to murder people for being an Infidel. I'm not surprised.
Smarter insults, kid. Just a piece of friendly advice. :)
I don't like Obama getting a second 4 years in the White House, but I do enjoy libs essentially hoisting themselves on their own petard.
And so quickly. If we had a Time Machine and could send the liberals who aren't speaking truth to power and voting for the guy who is now defending essentially the Bush doctrine (well now I'll call it the Obama doctrine) back in time to confront their younger selves all moral outraged up and indignant with fury about the evil of Bush the younger liberal version would probably spit in the face of his older self. And the older self would say, what an absolute ignoramus his younger self was. OR, alternatively would be left speechless as what a hypocrite he turned out to be.
And it wouldn't even require some great time lapse. Not even a full decade.
There is however the internet which acts as a time machine of sorts.
That shows that we have decimated them and are bringing them to their knees.
When did we decimate them and bring them to their knees?
Where was the wave of domestic terrorist attacks in the time between 9/11 and whenever that happened?
Look, it wouldn't matter if we "decimated" them. We live in a country where an illiterate Mexican farmed can easily wade across the Rio Grande and get a job working here, or buy a stolen gun and embark on a life of crime if that's his preference. Unless "decimated" means "there are really only like one or two terrorists left" that isn't a credible explanation.
Also, "they're on their knees" kind of conflicts with the "we're locked in a generations-long struggle" thing mentioned by other posters. Is the war on terrorism almost won, as you claim? Or does it have 50+ years to go, as others claim?
Aren't Progressives, Liberals, Democrats, the Left against the death penalty? Just how do they square this with their death penalty is government murder belief?
Why should I take a advice from dude who use smiley face? I bet you don't make that face every times you use that smiley just like most smiley users. It's rich to hear "kid" from you who use smiley.
But no waterboarding. So there's that.
I bet you don't make that face every times you use that smiley just like most smiley users.
:)
It's good to know that you took offend to my "insult."
Why you aren't concerned about Islamic Governments' actions? Why only focused on USA Government's actions, when there is many countries' human right abuses problems such as Cuba, Thailand, Venezuela, and Islamic Countries?
"An informed, high-level official of the US government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the US."
Long ago before I stopped drinking I was one of these "informed officials". Some days I went to work with a hangover that made me feel like killing someone. Thank goodness in those days I couldn't. Now they can.
Beorn wrote:
Righties were pretty much for the Iraq war. Maybe you missed the hypocrisy angle here.
I was for the Iraq war and still am. No hypocrisy. Alos for drone strikes then and now,.
Also for waterboarding (in limited cases) both for hog level al Qaeda targets and for those going through SERE training.
Now before I get called a moral monster, lets not forget that the majority of libs out there voted for the guy who continued said policies. Twice!
So you have no reason to call other people names. It was done in your name and you said nothing. Now you have nothing to say. You are neo cons same as me. You are exactly what you railed against.
Now go kill yourselves and spare us your excess population. Because of the environment.
Revenant wrote:
Look, it wouldn't matter if we "decimated" them. We live in a country where an illiterate Mexican farmed can easily wade across the Rio Grande and get a job working here, or buy a stolen gun and embark on a life of crime if that's his preference. Unless "decimated" means "there are really only like one or two terrorists left" that isn't a credible explanation.
this was one of the premises of going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Draw the jihadis who would fight us here to instead blow their wad fighting our troops who are far better equipped to wipe them off the map.
And there, in fact, thousands of our troops have been killed.
Why you aren't concerned about Islamic Governments' actions? Why only focused on USA Government's actions, when there is many countries' human right abuses problems such as Cuba, Thailand, Venezuela, and Islamic Countries?
Stick around the blog for a while, kid. Eventually you'll realize those were really dippy questions to ask me. :)
Ugh I hate to see one of my comment depleted. Let try again.
About Drug War, what is shame about it is there is so many morons around the world unaware of Drug Ban effect.
Ban drug, prices go up which mean it's worth stealing, smuggling, and murder over it.
Remove drug ban mean drugs' price go down. It will destroy black markets that thrives on drug business due to people able to make drugs for themselves or get drugs from drug companies without going to jail.
I prefer fair drug companies making any drugs over gangsters any days.
Why don't you criticize those governments I listed by explaining what is wrong with those governments right now? Don't be such a lazy pig.
Post a Comment