DOJ Justifies Drone Strikes Against Americans

Not that I have followed this case by case, but the countries I have heard of the drones use, we have been invited to do so. No, I would not support their use in most of the countries of the world. However, the people we are after would easily be considered criminals in most of the world and taken care of by those countries.

 

You have already pronounced to the world what you are, Teddy Ruxpin. Keep yacking it up and announcing it even louder.

 

The hypercriticism really gets them twisted in knots. I like it when Obama comes out in support of some Right-winger's idea and they have to back up at a 100 miles an hour to avoid looking like they are agreeing with him. It doesn't get anymore entertaining than that.

 

The truth hurts doesn't it? Anyone reading back can see exactly what I said about you is true. And this post is your defense? Okaaaaaaaaaay!?

 

Hurt? Not in the least. I love to see how deep you can dig your hole, Teddy Ruxpin. Keep it up. please.

There is no defense to your lies, Teddy Ruxpin. Just as if I would say you supported Bush, you would have no defense.

 

What is wrong, Teddy Ruxpin. Did you run out of BS? And I was looking forward to further evidence of your character. You are not going to disappoint me, are you?

 

Pakistan has not issued us any invitations.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/glob...ing-pakistans-permission-drone-strikes/57285/

And what of those countries in which the people we are after are not considered criminals? Or where they are simply not being hunted down and prosecuted to our satisfaction. Does the fact that we or, more specifically, our president considers them criminals give us the right to violate at will the rights and integrity of another sovereign nation with which we are officially at peace?

And if we decide that this is our prerogative is it not a two-way street? Are we okay with Mexico sending in drones to take out drug houses in Phoenix? What happens if North Korea decides that the American presence in South Korea is a threat to its security and starts engaging in targeted assassinations of American military officers and intelligence personnel? By our own actions we've established that as far as we are concerned this kind of thing is acceptable if done in the name of self defense.

 

What Pakistan says to the press and what they say otherwise are not necessarily the same thing. We are still operating in that country, right? I really think if they were not permitting drones, we would not be there.

As for a 2 way street, I strongly suspect that if someone in the US was actively waging war against Canada, they would have a rather short war from the US. Funny, but the same does not seem to be happening in Pakistan.

 

Thanks for clarifying your thinking on this.

 

It would be interesting to know perspective of the thousand or so civilians who have been killed or injured by them. Well, at least the injured. It is likely that the civilians killed found it unsettling for only a short time.

And as the data I posted shows...the increase in the use of drones is what seems to be changing. And, of course, as the news has shown, the countries they are used in and the people who are targeted is also changing. It is not a black and white issue where each President did the exact same thing. And like I said, I wouldn't be as uncomfortable with it if it was just Afghanistan (or even the Afghanistan/Pakistan border area).

Drones are a valid battlefield weapon. It is just when they are used outside the battlefield that I think the issue arises. And, frankly, I am surprised that more liberals are not speaking out against the issue. Things like this used to be an area where I would agree with liberals but, it has quickly become an issue that I, again, only have in common with (small 'l') libertarians

 

And Socialists.

 

Drones are a very effective tool. Obama has used them six times more than Bush did in half the amount of time. Most of the Obama drone attacks (310 as of January 13, 2013) were probably unleashed during the Libya slaughter. I don't have a problem with using drones against valid enemy targets in a war zone. I DO have a problem with killing innocent, civilian children and citizens (Libya) and Americans without due process (al-Awlaki and Samir Khan in Yemen).

The problem I have is that drones have been used to kill American citizens in undeclared war zones. Now, you may want to argue that al-Awlaki was an evil man. Indeed, he probably hated America. But, regardless of whether he was living in another country at the time of his death doesn't mean that he wasn't entitled to due process. When did it become acceptable for our leader to target American citizens for death without due process? Well, it became acceptable under the Obama administration. The DOJ memo makes it acceptable and justifies it. It sickens me.

Liberals are strangely silent on this matter. Modify their collective bargaining privileges and they want to burn down capitol buildings. Take away their Constitutional right to due process and they're silent as a church mouse.

Come on liberals, quit suckling at Obama's figurative tit, grow some testicles and stand up for your rights.

 

View attachment 1494

View attachment 1495

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...-for-drone-bombing-of-16-year-old-denver-boy/

 

Women and children, wedding parties, the usual terrorist suspects were getting smoked during the Bush regime as well although not necessarily with drones. Guided missiles I think were the weapon of choice back then. I'm not sure where you were with the outrage. in those days. At any rate you should read article that is the source of the excerpt below.

For the full piece check out....
http://socialistworker.org/2013/01/15/obamas-drone-wars

 

My outrage isn't in the use of drones. Drones are just tools in the same way rifles, tanks, guided missiles, etc. are tools. As I stated above, my condemnation lies in the fact that Americans were targeted and denied their due process rights. Then, the DOJ justifies that action which amounts to negating the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments for those Americans. If you diminish the rights for any person, you diminish the rights for all. Is that fair to any of us?

OK, some socialists are against Obama's use of drones to kill Americans. Even THEY get something right once in a while...

 

Given that, as I pointed out in the other thread on this topic, it was a piece published by NBC, which is hooted and jeered at here as LIBRUL!!!, and that the piece quoted above comes from the New York Times, another LIBRUL, LAME-STREAM MEDIA!!! outlet, and given that one of the main voices first raised against the policy came from the ACLU, widely derided by those on the right as a LIBRUL, COMMIE PINKO!!! organization, I find the accusation that "liberals are strangely silent" on this issue to be fatuous and disingenuous. BS and par for the course, in other words.

I had originally intended to post the link to the following blog post from Juan Cole (an acknowledged left-winger, as it happens) without much comment, but it serves as another illustration of why the statement that "liberals are strangely silent" is complete bullshit.

"Top Five Objections to the White House’s Drone Killing Memo" | Informed Consent

 

Both parties have been almost completely silent on the issue until now (with only a couple of exceptions). So to say that liberals have not been strangely silent on the issue is udder cow shit.

Only now that the UN has started to investigate and the issue of Americans being killed is in the news, shall we see exactly what side of the issue each political party comes down on.

 

Riiiiiiiight...! The liberal media is just plastered with this news story: So, I call bullshit on your bullshit.

CBS Evening News Skips Obama Memo on Drone Strikes Against U.S. Citizens

The CBS Evening News on Tuesday completely ignored the revelation, uncovered in a leaked government memo, that the Obama administration claims the power to legally strike al Qaeda terrorists, even if they're American citizens.

ABC's Good Morning America on Wednesday allowed a mere 42 seconds to this rather important topic. ABC's World News, NBC's Nightly News and the Today show all covered the story. Of the six evening and morning shows, however, only three featured the liberal American Civil Liberties Union decrying this move by a Democratic president.

World News reporter Jon Karl at least pointed out the obvious contradiction of liberals who railed against supposed torture by George W. Bush, reminding, "As soon as he became President, Barack Obama stopped CIA tactics like waterboarding that he considered torture. But this justifies outright killing a suspected terrorist."
The journalist added, "How does dropping a bomb on an American citizen without any judicial review, any trial, not raise any human rights questions, or more human rights questions than something like waterboarding?" (Or, one might also wonder, putting a catepillar in a box with a terrorist. Under George W. Bush, ABC labeled this "torture.")

Karl featured a clip of the ACLU's Hinsa Shamsi asserting that the policy is "a claim that the executive branch can be judge, jury and executioner."

NBC's Nightly News on Tuesday also included a snippet of an ACLU rep saying the "limits are vague and elastic."
Brian Williams, on the same program, asserted, "Others see the use of drones by the United States as nothing more than execution by air, without due process, no court, no charges, no trial, and relatively little oversight."
Good Morning America on Wednesday allowed less than a minute and no mention of the liberal ACLU complaining about the liberal Obama. News reader Josh Elliott insisted the latest news adds to the "growing debate now over whether the agency's controversial drone program is going too far."

Can one have a "growing debate" when GMA offers 42 seconds?

NBC's Today, at least, featured ACLU rep Jameel Jaffer complaining, "It is a chilling document. You know, it sets out the government's claimed authority to carry out the targeting killing of American citizens."
On CBS This Morning, Bill Plante allowed two clips of Jay Carney defending the policy as "legal" and "ethical." He also included Eric Holder, but didn't get to objections until the very end. Plante briefly explained, "Civil liberties advocates have been very upset with the targeted strike policy since it became public." Plante mentioned the ACLU, but allowed no clips any of their representatives.

https://www.mrc.org/biasalerts/yawn...-obama-memo-drone-strikes-against-us-citizens

 

One would think that our government, who is obviously very willing to trample on our Fifth and Fourteenth amendments, would at least be met with cries of "Burn down the Capitol" and "I predict violence in the streets" from our resident liberals. I mean, come on, these are our Constitutional rights we're talking about here... not something petty like collective bargaining privileges.

All I'm hearing is the chirping of:

View attachment 1498
CRICKETS

 

It appears I'm in the minority among left-leaning people. I'm disappointed, of course, but not overly concerned. I firmly understand, in no uncertain terms, that these American-born terrorists must be denied the opportunity to succeed in their mission, their life-long devotion, to kill American civilians (and military personnel). It is morally the right thing to do.

All arguments aside, I don't believe anyone here is suggesting that these militants be allowed to succeed. The arguments I've seen so far are legal technicalities sprinkled with an occasional absurdity. In the end, my argument in favor of them is going to win out within the general population and courts.

For the record, my disappointment in Democrats stems from several points.

The first is that, on this issue, republicans (pundits, etc.) are going to win.

They are thoroughly enjoying the internal bickering this issue has created. While I'm inclined to throw them a bone from time to time, I don't like them being too happy.

Which brings me to point two, there are bigger concerns out there for Democrats and Independents to put their energy into.

The republicans are still a powerful party, and will be for some time. Despite the current power-struggle within their party, they are still in control of far too many seats-of-power, and it's not impossible that they could create additional legal (though immoral) ways to remain in power, through an increase use of the rigging of elections and bribery, for example.

Remember who the enemy is and what they are capable of. They are devious, and they don't balk at using immoral acts to remain in power.

While I could go on, I'll leave with these final points.

To allow those American-born terrorists to live (due to some of your arguments) is tantamount to allowing them carte blanche to kill Americans at will.

Simply put, what other choice does America have?