Somebody (not in this forum) lied to me, I think. They claimed that Obama and Holder were defending the right of the administration to use such strikes against U.S. citizens in situations that were NOT extraordinary emergencies.
Can you help clarify this for me? My friends (bastards) said that Holder wanted the right to kill a terrorist or enemy combatant when he was just sitting in his car eating a cheeseburger. That, of course, would be damn wrong. But if the guy is on top of a hill somewhere with a sniper rifle…he’s fair game, isn’t he? A drone strike is very little different from a police counter-sniper.
Holder/Obama/Brennan state that they can kill an American citizen on US soil under extraordinary circumstances (my e.g., scrambling a fighter jet to shoot down a US commercial airliner on a 9/11 type day).
They may have given a poor answer at some point and it’s likely being misconstrued (if you have an exact quote or Q&A exchange I can provide some context). Regardless, of course the President has inherent power to defend the nation and that can involve killing Americans…the likelihood and circumstances of that actually happening would be extraordinary.
*I didn’t mention drones because that’s not really relevant.
:rolleyes: Pure garbage. Drone strikes are neither efficient nor effective at anything but killing random brown males, which is about all we care about. They are certainly not effective against anti-American anything; they’ve been manufacturing new enemies for America right and left, turning neutral groups and movements into enemies.
Drone strikes are about Obama being able to “look tough” by killing random foreigners, without risking embarrassing American casualties.
Anyway, the people who squeal about the killing of American citizens by drone strikes are xenophobic shitheads.
If the targeting of Al Quaeda or Taliban militants is kosher than its irrelevant if they’re American citizens or not.
American citizens accused of being enemy collaborators weren’t given more rights than foreigners in past wars, why should they be treated differently now.
Now, if people feel the SEALS who executed/murdered Bin Laden should be tried as war criminals/murderers that’s a different story.
They’re idiots, but at least they’re not hypocrites.
The answer, of course, is politics. People look at a politician and essentially say, “He’s doing nine things I agree with and one thing I disagree with” and they justify supporting him and ignoring the one thing they don’t like for the nine things they do. Especially when the alternative is the politician’s opponent, who wants to do ten things they disagree with, including the one they don’t like their guy doing. As the cliche goes, politics is the art of the possible. And it’s not a failing of the left because the right does the same thing.
The stuff above in quote marks was stuff you quoted, not stuff you wrote yourself; the last sentence was yours. (Just trying to be clear.)
My thought was that, yeah, you could have something of the sort happen. I gave a couple examples, above: a group of armed felons in the desert, or a sniper on a hilltop. Such a target could meet the three criteria. It isn’t impossible…just kinda unlikely.
But the clarification that the target must pose an imminent threat is the one that I’m mad at my friends for lying to me about. They (like Paul) seemed to imagine a strike against a cafe. So, yeah, I agree with your conclusion: Paul was taking what would have been a valid point, and screwing with it to make it look unfairly bad for the administration.
I’ve seen lots of complaining by progressives about the President’s drone policy in online news sources and forums, even merely centre-left publications like the New Republic have been critical of many aspects of it.
A large number of American citizens were executed or imprisoned during WWII without being treated differently than foreign nationals accused of the same crimes or being treated with due process, and I don’t remember any progressives getting upset about that, so I don’t think American progressives are terribly hypocritical regarding this policy.
Why would I? It’s common knowledge to anyone who views the drone program through its actual statistics versus emotions and ideology. I know it’s of no purpose to argue with you that the drone program does not indiscriminately target “brown people”.
Americans killed in these operations? Hovering around zero. Each hellfire missile costs about $70K. The predator drone costs about $4 million and is fairly cheap to maintain.
Lastly, these attacks allow us to operate in regions we normally would never have access to. It’s one ideal tool for the type of problem we face with this kind of militancy popping up anywhere there are destabilized governments and a predominantly conservative Muslim population such as in Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia, Syria, Libya, and Mali to name a few.
It was a gut-reaction… that, if you replace “program” with “slavery” and change the names of people the whole statement you made is exactly the sentiment of the times.
And while I do acknowledge and agree with your position, the reason I went there is because of:
If I learned anything about Lincoln is that from an idea of change to the actual change a strong and courageous leadership is needed for positive change to come about.
I don’t believe Obama has it in his heart to do what he’s doing but he needs to recognize the dynamic that brought him into this situation and harness the power of people like you and “manage” somewhat radical types (e.g. Der Trihs) just like Lincoln managed Tadeusz and the change can come about.
However, what makes me realize - and I’m sure many Americans - that the courage is not there and, unfortunately, when there’s no courage the only conclusion is that there is no conviction.
That’s why drones are “popular” - not that average American really took time to think it through.
The “actual statistics” of course meaning “statistics that make the US look good”. You are also completely ignoring the fact that it’s making enemies out of people and movements who wouldn’t be our enemies otherwise, and there’s no way your going to kill off a religion of over a billion people with drone strikes.
Yeah, right. :rolleyes: I’m sure that bombing weddings and funerals and rescue workers will do nothing but win the populace over. Unlike white Christians, they aren’t human enough to be angered by the deaths of friends and relatives and seek revenge. I’m sure it’ll make them all give up and submit to us, just like the Nazi bombing of Britain got Britain to surrender to Germany.
Sure, we question both the legality and morality of it. It troubles me that there appear to be no rules governing the use of these weapons. I don’t believe that Obama is any more entitled to work outside the law than Bush was. That being said, and as uneasy as the concept of drone warfare makes me, it also seems that drone use results in loss of fewer innocents than any other means of warfare. So you wind up with the dilemma of should you take an action that will likely cost dozens of innocent lives to save the potential loss of hundreds of innocent lives? Not an easy question to answer.
To add another ingredient to the soup, one small reason I have not been more vocal on my opposition to this administrations policies in the arena is because Obama has been attacked on EVERYTHING. Nothing he does, even when the idea originally came from a Republican, is acceptable to the loyal opposition. As a centrist, civil libertarian, I find many of Obama’s policies to be just as bad as the previous administration and i am not happy about it, but the party of no has pretty much lost all my support these days and last election (for the first time ever) I voted straight D party ticket. Until the Republicans regain some sanity and stop being pandering assholes, I am going to give Obama a pass on many of his activities…
Drones are just a tool of warfare. They are neither good nor bad. It’s how you use them that makes a difference. The folks whose families were killed at a wedding don’t care if it was a drone or a manned aircraft that did the killing. Or so we would think.
Having said that, there is a certain amount of negative PR we get by using drones instead of manned aircraft. It’s not rational, but it does make us look like Darth Vader and the Evil Empire. And I’m sure the US would be none to happy if China, for instance, used drones against some alleged terrorists in Mexico, near the US border.
But the key issue is the targeting of American citizens without due process. Few of us are saying that Obama shouldn’t be able to take out someone like al-Alwaki, but we just want some non-exective branch oversight of the process.
And Hamlet is exactly correct. We’ve done this same debate several times before in the past year or so.