The Justice Department “white paper” purporting to authorize Obama’s power to extrajudicially execute US citizens was leaked three weeks ago. Since then, the administration – including the president himself and his nominee to lead the CIA, John Brennan – has been repeatedly asked whether this authority extends to US soil, i.e., whether the president has the right to execute US citizens on US soil without charges. In each instance, they have refused to answer.
I watched some Liberal Obama supporters on MSNBC defending all this saying that it’s OK to kill people like this because “they want to kill us.” This logic is never extended because these are the same folks who eschew the death penalty as uncivilized. Thus they do not want to kill someone who actually does kill “us.” But it is OK, without trial to kill someone in a precrime manner who supposedly “wants to kill us.” The illogic of this thinking is amazing to me.
Missed all the complaining about Drone Strikes between 2001 and 2009.
Name US citizen killed on purpose, targeted, without previous trial and conviction by a drone strike, by US Government prior to Obama Administration. Anywhere.
This and only this Administration jumped over the Constitutional limit banning such behavior. Constitution does not protect non-US citizens abroad, particularly not ones involved in combat or terrorism. Constitution PROTECTS US citizens from US Government everywhere, no matter what they do until they are properly charged, convicted and sentenced.
Another first for Barry.
I read a comment on HuffPo where the person said he would be against this behavior if Bush were still president but it was OK while Obama was president since he trusted him to do the right think.
Beat that reasoning if you can.
Sorry, should be “do the right thing”.
I know he can’t do the right think.
Really? We were out in the force. I showed up with the Vigil for Peace and there were numerous protests around the nation against Bush policy. Then, Obama gets elected, and the anti-war died down to the small group of people who are actually anti-war and not just anti-Republican.
The illogic of this thinking is amazing to me.
Illogical thinking is predominate in the human species.
My hope is someday humans will discover intelligent life and perhaps find a method to study the inner workings of intelligence and try to mimic the effect.
However, intelligent life would have the intelligence to avoid us, so it is more likely intelligent life has discovered us and it is steering clear of our solar system until humans evolve into an intelligent species, which may require several million years of evolution provided we don’t destroy ourselves with our tinker toys.
The word should be predominant.
There is very little intelligent life on earth. (Maybe dolphins and crows.)
Crows. Yes, definitely crows.
pre·dom·i·nate
Verb
1. Be the strongest or main element; be greater in number or amount: “small-scale producers predominate in the south”.
2. Have or exert control or power.
Synonyms
prevail – dominate – preponderate – reign
Predominate is a verb meaning to prevail, to have greater importance or quantity. You can easily see the root word: dominate, to command over.
Its history is uncertain, but it was probably borrowed from Medieval Latin’s predominare.
What does the law say about entering another country’s air space with the express purpose of killing somebody without a declaration of war? The whole though of this subject makes my head swim and hurt. I do not believe it is legal.
I’ve given up trying to understand liberals, especially when it comes to this and their support for the provision that allows for this in the NDAA.
Before you beat up on Liberals too much, where are the Conservatives on this issue? Aren’t they suppose to be the self-described defenders of the Constitution?
The question is if there is really any difference between the two worth noting. Both conservatives and liberals seem to worship the power of the state and have full faith in government to do everything that needs to be done.
Welcome to U.S.A 2.0 where our government ignores their oath “I promise to preserve, defend and uphold the Constitution, observe the Laws, …”. Now it seems Obama thinks no differently then Bush in that Bush said “he went to war to protect America….his sworn duty. His goal is to increase our security…to make us safer.”
Abiding by the constitution and our laws protects U.S. better then drones ever will!
We’re all fracked. Why is it the government is buying 1.6 BILLION rounds of ammo? Is it the govenment’s plan to horde all the ammo, keeping the citizens effectively unarmed?
And now all the drone bases being built in the USA.This crap is getting scary.But still the sheeple are asleep. Maybe they’ll wake up when they’re being herded into cattle cars and off to the camps.
Will drones be deployed over the continental US? YES!!!
Will drones kill people in the continental US? YES!!! Accidentally or on purpose drones will give in to the force of gravity.
Socrates had the right idea. (But hemlock tastes awful.)
Lets parse:
I watched some Liberal Obama supporters on MSNBC defending all this saying that it’s OK to kill people like this because “they want to kill us.” //// Cherry picking isolated statements allows everyone to find what they want, think what they want, post what they want and never actually engage the issue. Just log roll their own preconceived notions and prejudices. You can rationally and correctly argue for or against a proposition by directly addressing the issues at hand. When you are too dull witted to go with thinking, ….. then Cherry Pick.
This logic is never extended because these are the same folks who eschew the death penalty as uncivilized. /// Well, thats a fun argument. I could say Yes, the death penalty is uncivilized, AND SO IS WAR. No inconsistency at all. We have custody and control over a prisoner that has been arrested. No custody or control over combatants in a war zone. How can you miss that?
Thus they do not want to kill someone who actually does kill “us.” //// Did you talk to these folks about what they wanted? No??? Just pure speculation on your part? Different conversations and different peoples’ statements kinda all cobbled together for the point you wish to make? Don’t most such people want life without parole for those convicted of murder? Again–these people are in custody and control of the USA but the illegal comatants are not.
But it is OK, without trial to kill someone in a precrime manner who supposedly “wants to kill us.” //// I think it is a crime, or could be made one easily, to leave the USA and join an enemy combat force who is actively engaged in killing American Citizens. So, there is a “pre-crime” of actually killing, but there is a current crime of conspiracy being guilty of all the crimes post facto as aiding and abetting. The only pre-crime is the next killing that will take place without intervention. So–factually and legally wrong for most of the argument.
The illogic of this thinking is amazing to me. /// Feel better now?
Ha, ha. You fire a gun, you fire a Cannon, you drop a bomb===those are all ok and acceptable. But you fire a drone, and the same end goal and result becomes illogical? THAT is illogical, specious, and willfully blind.
War is Hell. It is logical and illogical in its various bits and pieces. Have to parse it fairly finely sometimes to figure it out.
CONTRA: I cant make the argument based on logic. But I can make it based on “humanitarian” concerns such as the illegal, even in war, use of chemical or biological weapons. The risk of harm to innocents is disproportionate to the goal being sought–so don’t use them. No more drones.
DOUBLE CONTRA: and worse than drones in my opinion: Land Mines. They kill 1000’s times more innocents in much the same way DECADES after the hostilities have stopped–and most often the kiddies. At least drones have human operators and a very specific (dare I say named) objective. They are expensive too unlike the other methods of death so they won’t be used indiscriminately.
Hooray for Drone Warfare. Its the only sane way to go.
Yea, verily. Can I has my combat ribbon now?
So you agree that drones should be used domestically on US Citizens, if Dear Leader thinks there is a perceived pre-crime threat?
Do you think Obama should have the balls to at least address the question with a solid answer.
That was an important part of the comment that you so conveniently forgot to parse.
So you agree that drones should be used domestically on US Citizens, if Dear Leader thinks there is a perceived pre-crime threat? /// Drones are being used NOW in the USA as they will be in the future: under local “control.” Federal officers below the Pres will eventually do it too. Surveillance today will grow into all possible uses tomorrow. It is as they say: “only a tool.” Dorner had fire starting smoke grenades used to burn down the house he was in directly causing him to kill himself. Would a tank busting in the door and crushing him have been any different? An armed drone? The whole issue is “new tech” doing old things. Its different and the same all at the same time. That makes it fun to parse. Fairly, its about impossible to make a logical case between 30 police officers fusillading a log cabin versus a single drone doing the same job. ,,,,,,,, So, how are they “different?” Distance, propinquity, being personally at risk for physical harm I think may be the key. The vagaries of killing someone else balanced or not with the risk of personal harm/self protection in achieving the goal? The drone is quite singularly purposeful. Shooting back, trying to get into the cabin, all a bit more loosey goosey—but not really? In a previous post I said use of drones should have a judicial approval, like the Fisa Court? Like Fisa–get the approval before or after. The results were posted here months ago–was it one denial out of 100’s or 1000’s of reviews? Can “procedure” cure the ill being complained of?? If its lack of due process, thats all it is.
John—can you NAME the ill that is upsetting you? Certainly, I don’t take the slippery slope as your discomfort…. or maybe just the first 2-3 feet of it?
NAME THE ISSUE. takes the fun out of just about everything. Psychotherapists make millions off the delay.
Do you think Obama should have the balls to at least address the question with a solid answer. /// Of course he should. We both know the outlines of that answer: risk to America. Just as in the use of any other force. The man might INDIVIDUALLY DECIDE to Nuke Iran. Probably with Stealth Fighters though so unmanned drones won’t be the issue.
That was an important part of the comment that you so conveniently forgot to parse. //// Already being overly long for this forum, I thought brevity would reveal my soul. I did parse the entirety of your prose. I thought Headlines were mostly Teasers and not properly part of the argument?
Hereyago:
Drone Attacks on US Soil? Why not? /// Exactly so. The justifying elements of the policy all apply “except” gaining custody and control over the evil doers is more possible in the USA as opposed to overseas. That is a big difference. But, indeed, why not? Providing due process is covered above. Just get a Court Order to allow the killing.
Next stop? Kill All Political Enemies. /// And thats why I didn’t respond. Not “all” political enemies, only those working to undermine what makes America so Exceptional. …… But I kid, only slightly more obviously than you are.
Back to the Cabin scenario. I’m about to say I support use of Drones overseas, but not domestically for the reasons given. But why not require a Court Order before using fire setting grenades? The end is the same. THE DIFFERENCE: after use of the grenades, the suspect ((thats all they are afterall–innocent of crime by law)) still has a chance to give up. Not so with Drones. Use of drones overseas is WAR. Use of drones domestically is law enforcement. They should be not allowed as their use is in fact an execution order.
Gee, I feel all warm and toasty inside. Better quench that with a beer. Like a drone, my sense of the absurd will launch in about 30 minutes.
John…if you will, for yourself or the forum==what really bothers you about using drones overseas? What is your alternative? Drones or a head shot from a mile away===whats the diff?
It occurs to me as I pop my second beer: the main alternative is “No drone strikes on US Citizens overseas except in active combat situations.” //// Ok, thats easy to define and enforce. Leaving al Queda with a “safe zone” to meet and plan their next battles: just always have an American in your midst.
The first StarTrek had a similar situation: the inhumanity of War removed by apply a computer with rules. People voluntarily going to a kill center to avoid the Insanity of War, but 1000’s of innocents were still being lost in this “rule based warfare.” Our Hero Kirk suggested that the rules be done away with: experience the full horrors of war. Being a tv show, the horror stopped the two civilizations from waring and they all lived happily ever ever. Screw the Prime Directive.
So…. looks like logic has it that if you are against Droning Americans, then you support the Taliban?
“DOUBLE CONTRA: and worse than drones in my opinion: Land Mines.”
Agree and some people are working on removing them.
http://www.apopo.org/en/
I watch MSNBC about as often as any of the TV channels. I’ve never once heard any of the staff, presenters or regulars on the few shows I bump into advance the opinion JCD says they do, e.g., OK to kill Americans on home soil if they are “enemies”.
Are you certain you’re not quoting a source as reliable as, say, Drudge or Hannity?
Seriously…find me a video of Bashir, Maddow, O’Donnell, Schultz, Matthews, Hayes, etc. saying what you believe you’re quoting!
I’ve never heard any of them say anything but the opposite, questioning Obama’s position on the practice. I don’t watch any of them very much; but, I would recall one of them saying that.
Or, rereading your statement, did you mean “liberal” supporters of Obama who were guests on some MSNBC show, eh?
Though it’s not any more illogical than the politics, say, of Israel in the Middle East. I think “criminal” a more appropriate term.
About a year ago, Dick Cheney had a heart transplant just so he would be physically able to do his happy-dance at times like this. He must be positively giddy, and deservedly so.
Well, I don’t support this policy and didn’t during the Cheney Administration when he and his monkey bitch, Bush, pushed forward to spy on Americans without a warrant, torturing suspects, and murdering people with drones.
Having said that, we have a responsible two term President Obama in office.
When will you wingnuts finally stop calling Obama a liberal? Liberals don’t believe in executing Americans without a trial and conviction, using drones or any other methods.
Not many people noticed this other event, but liberals don’t hire Wall Street insiders like Mary Jo White to run the SEC, either.
But White has for the past decade represented banks and bankers as head of litigation at the New York law firm Debevoise & Plimpton. In more than 10 years as one of New York’s most sought-after white-collar defense attorneys, White represented a long list of corporate titans, including former Bank of America chief executive Ken Lewis and, in 2005, Morgan Stanley, which hired her to vet John Mack, a prospective CEO.
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/mary-jo-white-sec_n_2542855.html)
I can’t understand why anyone calling themselves liberal would support Obama. He’s a moderate Republican from a previous generation.
Dvorak is throwing a bone to cheer up the TPubs
+1
You don’t go to an election with the candidates you want, you go with the candidates you have. 🙁
(At least Donald Rumsfeld was good for a quote)
Unique among wars, the war on terror has and needs no exit strategy, because we all knew from the very beginning that this war will never end and the potential battlefield encompasses the entirety of planet earth.
Meanwhile, we have a constitution that was written by people who fought with muskets and feared a government with the power to force citizens to quarter soldiers in their homes during times of peace. My, how times have changed.
Yes, the never-ending war, beloved by tyrants everywhere as a method to keep the peasants docile. Sit down and shut up and do what you’re told, there’s a WAR on! 🙁
“…these are the same folks who eschew the death penalty as uncivilized. Thus they do not want to kill someone who actually does kill “us.” But it is OK, without trial to kill someone in a precrime manner who supposedly “wants to kill us.” ”
I believe it more a matter of economics, rather than morals. Drones are very expensive war toys. Whereas a rope, electric chair, or lethal drugs, is quite an inexpensive way to execute someone. Only the trial is actually expensive. Drones make tons of money for the defense contractors who make them. And the lack of a trial, by just droning a human, saves the court expenses. Congress, and the various US Presidents would rather that taxpayers’ money went to weapon systems. Not the courts.
Phydeau speaking out of both sides of his mouth says:
You don’t go to an election with the candidates you want, you go with the candidates you have. 🙁 ///>> Then says: I can’t understand why anyone calling themselves liberal would support Obama. He’s a moderate Republican from a previous generation. //// Typo? Brain Fart?? Short Attention Span??? Lack of a full stop and transition????
When will you wingnuts finally stop calling Obama a liberal? Liberals don’t believe in executing Americans without a trial and conviction, using drones or any other methods. //// As with your recognition above…. an idea is still born without considering the alternatives. Its what makes WAR hell. Good people doing bad things with evil means for dubious/short term/debateable ends. Same as it always was.
Not many people noticed this other event, but liberals don’t hire Wall Street insiders like Mary Jo White to run the SEC, either. /// Totally agree. Obama is the best friend a corrupt corporatist could ever have. He’s actually worse than Bush in this area of lack of prosecution. He’s made “looking forward” a curse to the common man.
Next Up—-Canadian Tar Sands. Can Obama possibly approve the most wrong thing for energy production that can be done?
Stay tuned. What would the waste of space Billary do?
Hey bobbo, I’m a “least evil” supporter. I voted for him, even though he’s not a liberal, because he’s not as bad as the other guy would have been. He does some things I like, I support him in those, other things he doesn’t like, I criticize him on. A nuance that those like pedro seem incapable of understanding, but oh well.
Money rules. The rest of us are at the mercy of the rich and powerful.
A quibble: money doesn’t rule. Greed and the lust for power that money makes easier to achieve does rule.
I understand Obama’s personality of not wanting or in fact not being an angry black man. He’d be in jail not the WhiteHouse if he had the emotions of a person free and unrestrained from birth.
I don’t get why he is such a toady to the monied interests though. 50/50 he will ever even try to tell us. He could have prosecuted Wall Street Fraud just a little bit and still kept the contributers on board. The criminals do cheat the honest players …… if there are any? It has crippled his legacy though. Too bad. He coulda been a contender.
reminds me of the crusades, but instead of “religion”, its “democracy”
So secret law is okay? The very idea that any branch of the US Governmat operating on laws that you citizens cannot even be allowed to know should terrify the ever living crap out of you. If I have to explain that, you really are a simpleton. Run for office, you’ll fit right in.
Have you seen Kyle? He’s about this tall.
Liberals see this as ok because it’s their team in charge. Go team!
You’re exactly right, and this is one of the biggest dangers of excessive partisanship. We sit on our hands every time “our guy” is the offender, and any attacks from the opposing side get denigrated as “partisan politics” even when they’re well-founded. As each successive administration grabs more power in this never ending war on terror, they can count on at least half the country to be relatively subdued if not downright supportive.
Few slopes are more dangerous and slippery than creeping extensions of presidential power against the backdrop of perpetual war.