My claim was about the Obama supporters I know, both in person and online. As it is, I don’t think this point is relevant to the debate, I just thought you were painting with too broad a brush. Myself and several other Obama voters in this thread nevertheless disagree with him vehemently on the issue of drone strikes and the “war on terror”, among other things.
I’m slightly confused, or you (Condescending Robot) saying there never was an Al Qaeda network, or there is not one now?
It’s very obvious to me, there was. Today, not so much. But it’s because we blew 'em up (basically).
Today, we’ll take you’re Al Qaeda in the Arabian Penisula (AQAP). You’re point is accurate and whether that group falls under the AUMF Human Action just posted is debateable. If they don’t fall under the AUMF, the President is not authorized to use military force against them. I think they do, because the group is really two groups that combined together in Yemen. One non-al qaeda group, one al qaeda group. The American we killed came from the non-al qaeda group - but by then they were definitely one consolidated group that had links (received instruction, ect.) back to the “core” al qaeda. For the record, AQAP actually holds territory in Yemen - they are an armed militia that controls entire towns (which gives the President some leeway in that he could argue he’s helping the Yemen Gov’t fight a civil war - that’s not an argument Obama is making, though).
Anyways, to me, it’s like was India apart of the UK? In one sense, no - they’re Indians, not Englishmen, but in another, it was under the command and control of the “core” UK, so yea, definitely.
However, you cannot stretch it indefinitely and you have a very valid point re: exactly who is al qaeda today and do they fall under who the President is authorized to go after and kill using drones or anything. But, you need to actually dig into the details of the groups we are going after and not apply a blanket statement to all terrorists.
My point is exactly what I said…“Al Qaeda” was bin Laden himself and a small circle of devotees and investors. The conception that every place on Earth has its own local branch of Al Qaeda which is being directed by some central command like it’s COBRA or something, is what Bush and Obama have been pushing, and it’s nonsense. Right now, the claim is that the Pakistani teenagers we’re killing are somehow affiliated with “the Taliban.” The problem is there’s no evidence offered for this, it’s really unclear what “the Taliban” even is or wants anymore, and whatever “the Taliban” is, it clearly has neither the will nor the means to affect the security of the U.S. We’re literally killing people because they are in an adjacent country, to the former home, of people who are co-opting the name, of a group that had some dealings with bin Laden at some point. Four degrees of separation is what turns an act of war into an act of murder.
A shift key? Knowledge of when to use the shift key?
I disagree with the first sentence - I’ve offered sources above. And we’re not attacking every place on Earth. Afghanistan/Pakistan, Yemen. 3 places on Earth.
The Taliban is not relevant to what we were discussing.
Obama is not targeting innocent people
And we should remove the power for presidents to do that before that comes to pass.
Upthread someone said they are targeting first responders, launching a second strike at the rescue workers. Do you agree with that tactic?
How? In particular, how do you propose to authorize this power only for the presidents you like?
Double-taps don’t target first responders, they are to make sure the target has been killed. Casualties among first responders are a side-effect, not the goal.
Congress can repeal the AUMF at any time.
Hah!
No, he’s targeting areas (Hellfire missiles have a blast radius of 60ft or so, if I’m not mistaken). Sometimes innocent people are in these areas.
Say we did remove that power for non-Obama presidents – we have still set a precedent for the rest of the world and their use of drones. Which means we have to seriously consider a scenario in which, say, a terrorist plotting against China is living in Los Angeles, and the Chinese are considering drone-attacking him or her. Does our precedent set a sufficiently moral and legal example?
Setting a precedent doesn’t mean anything when we’re talking about how countries will actually act. There is a precedent for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and code of conduct even in war. How many times after the Geneva Conventions were ratified and nations signed on to it have those rules been violated.
China will NEVER attack a terrorist in the US using drones. It would mean war. We do it in places like Afghanistan or Pakistan because their country is sufficiently weak that they cannot respond, plus we prop those regimes up with billions of dollars. Even if China knew of an imminent danger, they would not attack the US. Doesn’t matter what precedent has been set, the benefits are not worth the cost
Including after a new president you hate abuses it, or never. How do you propose to authorize these powers only for presidents you like?
So, what? Other countries won’t act morally, so why should we? Setting a moral precedent is still important to do, especially by those with power. As a bonus, it will also uphold our belief in American exceptionalism.
I’m not sure how to respond to this. We can use drones without permission in other countries, but you can’t use drones in ours? That’s hypocrisy, but I think you already know that.
[QUOTE=I Made French Toast For You]
I’m not sure how to respond to this. We can use drones without permission in other countries, but you can’t use drones in ours? That’s hypocrisy, but I think you already know that.
[/QUOTE]
It’s not hypocrisy, merely reality. There is no reason for China to use drones over the US, as there is no reason for the US to use drones over France or Belgium. We police our own. Afghanistan, Pakistan or the other nations mentioned where we use drones, obviously they don’t and in most cases can’t even if they wanted too…which is why we are using them in those places. If a terrorist was hanging out in LA, then WE would send in people to take care of the problem. Doesn’t seem a hard concept to grasp to me, even leaving aside YogSosoth’s point about it being an act of war to do something like that to another major power, which doesn’t seem too realistic for China to do, even leaving aside the impact on all that trade stuff.
We act in a way that best serves our collective interest, obviously. In countries that can’t police themselves, where terrorists and insurgents are able to run wild and do as they please, what exactly do YOU propose we in the rest of the world do?? Nothing? Because somehow it’s not moral…whatever that means in terms of a nation state who is trying to protect it’s own and it’s allies interests? Is it more moral to allow folks like the Taliban to run about and shoot up and terrorize the local population because we shouldn’t go after them, or more moral to do something about it and at least try and make them and their leadership keep it’s collective head down?
China is not led by Obama (PBUH) therefore China is fallible. Say Obama contrived to make himself the general secretary of the Communist Party of China (which, since he has the power to bend reality at will, he could do at any time he wished). Then, it would be okay for China to use drones in the U.S., because Obama would be doing it, therefore it would be right.
Very easy to understand the logic once you see it.
You aren’t really saying anything here, and it isn’t necessarily hypocrisy.
If our use of drones is wrong, then it is wrong for a reason. Perhaps the drones are causing an unacceptable amount of collateral damage. Perhaps the drones are superfluous since existent police forces would already be capturing the terrorists anyway. Perhaps the drones are counterproductive due to increasing pro-terrorist sentiment. Perhaps the governments of the target countries have provided no support to terrorists after all. Perhaps the use of drones is just dead wrong no matter what due to being inhumane. Perhaps it is always wrong to interfere with another country except by declaring all-out war.
And if the use of drones is right, then it is right for a reason (such as the opposites of all the above).
If another country were to use drones on the US, there would be reasons for it to be right or wrong. Those calling it wrong would not necessarily have to apply hypocritical reasoning; that would depend on their reasons for believing the current use of drones is ok.
I understand the realities of why China wouldn’t want to use drones within our borders, and why our government would want to use them within Pakistan and Yemen. The hypocrisy I want to point out is this: there is evidence we are violating the sovereignty of other nations, international law, and possibly international human rights law, yet we would condemn other countries’ violations as immoral or illegal. (See chapter four of the Stanford Clinic report for a cite.) Thus, we may be setting an awful precedent for the rest of the world regarding the use of drones. The reality is that China may never use them on us, but they will use them, and I’d feel a lot better if the US were on sound moral and legal footing when they do.
Terrorists can run wild and do as they please, as long as they don’t attack us or others, or plan to do so imminently (but of course, then they wouldn’t be terrorists). If they do, then we can use force in cooperation with the country they’re in, according to UN policies on self defense. If they don’t, then leave the policing to that country’s police: the NYT article I linked to earlier said that Yemen has an American-trained “elite counterterrorism unit” that could be used to combat terrorism locally. Why aren’t they being utilized?
Of course, we shouldn’t be killing anyone if we can capture them instead. I can’t find a cite on how many terrorists we’ve captured under Obama, but as far as I know it’s one. One of the problems specific to drones, in my mind, is that when a decision comes down to “kill vs. capture”, it’s now a heck of a lot easier to kill and be done with it.
Okay, so there are good reasons and bad reasons to use drones, and I can imagine moral, legal reasons for our using them, and immoral, illegal reasons for other people using them. Which is why it’s so important to make sure we’re using them for good reasons, and in a correct and ethical way. The Stanford report evidence leads me to believe that we’re not.
That second tap is NOT targeting “first responders” as in ambulance crews - it is targeting the trainees at a training camp - the ones who will be the first to try to dig out the command center just hit.
Timing is everything - the people who are there in the first 30 seconds are very likely to be the co-horts of the folks in the rubble.
If the second hit is 5 minutes later, yeah, you are going to get the local medical types.
Saying that a double tap is ALWAYS wrong misses the point - we don’t want to waste ammo killing people with whom we have no grudge - but if that second missile will take out the rest of the training base, it is a missile well spent.
The US is not targeting innocents. The ji-hadists are.
And “Taliban” may or may not be bad guys - it is possible to want an Islamic government without wanting jihad. But don’t assume that all Afghans who shoot back at invading armies are ji-hadist.
And, remember all those evil “madrasas” turning out “terrorists”?
Yep, it means “parochial school”. See Madrasa - Wikipedia
It doesn’t matter if double taps are or are not targeting rescuers – it’s still killing them. And it prevents rescue efforts for anyone who may have been hit because people are too afraid to help them, for fear that it might be a double tap.
The problem with the entire debate over this issue is that one side just keeps recycling bullshit and doesn’t seem to care about what the sources are reporting. If you’re just going to keep insisting that anyone who gets hit by an American bomb is a “terrorist” in one of these mythical “terrorist training camps” (you know, the places with the monkey bars and the ‘command centers’ that don’t fucking exist) then maybe you can sleep at night, but what you can’t do is contribute anything useful to a discussion of the real world.
you need to read about how they’ve targeted a few funeral processions as well.
it’s not entirely true to say they are not targeting innocent people. it appears they either directly are or at best are just being extremely indiscriminate.