So it is 'OK' to kill American's with Drones

[GURPS]

but Enhanced Interrogations techniques are Immoral

NBC: here’s the Obama administration’s white paper legitimizing drone strikes!


NBC News has gotten its hands on a white paper that’s being used to legitimize the Obama administration’s drone policy, and it’s a… doozy. Short version: members of terrorist groups actively attacking the United States (or our interests) can expect to be shot on sight; and that includes the members of terrorist groups that happen to also be American citizens. And the administration does not have the inclination, and does not feels that it has the need, to particularly clear with anybody their taking the shot if a suitable target hoves into view.

Mind you, I don’t disagree with the basic argument*… but then, I’m a neoconservative. I knew that my faction had won the foreign policy debate – shame it’s no longer being implemented by somebody competent – but I didn’t realize that it was this comprehensive a win. I in particular never expected to encounter this argument from this White House:

…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.​

(pause)

Yes. From there it really is only a short jump to concluding And that’s why it was all right to topple the Hussein regime in Iraq.

Read the whole thing – and, if you’re a member of the antiwar movement, I have a personal request: video record yourself reading it. I’ve never actually watched somebody’s soul die a little, inside, and I’m morbidly curious to see what it looks like.

Ok Gotcha ........

 

[glhs837]

Good with me, declare yourself to be at war with the country, have a Hellfire to the face, see you in hell. Things like this convince me that even a malignant narcissist can see reason once in a while. Go get'em, Mr President.

 

[vraiblonde]

Short version: members of terrorist groups actively attacking the United States (or our interests) can expect to be shot on sight; and that includes the members of terrorist groups that happen to also be American citizens. And the administration does not have the inclination, and does not feels that it has the need, to particularly clear with anybody their taking the shot if a suitable target hoves into view.

I have no problem with this and it would surprise me if any conservative did. Or maybe not, since it's policy under SATAN!'s watch and not a Republican's.

You'd think the libs would be losing their minds. Or maybe not, since it's policy under GOD!'s watch and not a Republican's.

 

[FreedomFan]

You'd think the libs would be losing their minds. Or maybe not, since it's policy under GOD!'s watch and not a Republican's.

Come on. Party over principle.

 

[aps45819]

So it is 'OK' to kill American's with Drones ........

....

 

[GURPS]

my problem is with the hypocrisy


how long until it is OK to Kill Americans here in the USA .... RE: Waco

'it would have been too difficult to raid the compound, too many ATF Agents would have lost their lives, we told them to surrender, they refused, we dropped a 500 lb JDAM on them ... '

 

[vraiblonde]

my problem is with the hypocrisy


how long until it is OK to Kill Americans here in the USA .... RE: Waco

So Obama cannot do anything that would normally be applauded by conservatives because he didn't do something else previously and because he might get mission creep?

You people are effed in your heads and have become the crazy Bush moonbats that you made fun of.

 

[MMDad]

I have no problem with this and it would surprise me if any conservative did. Or maybe not, since it's policy under SATAN!'s watch and not a Republican's.

You'd think the libs would be losing their minds. Or maybe not, since it's policy under GOD!'s watch and not a Republican's.

I have a problem with it being a unilateral decision without congressional or judicial oversight. I don't blame it only on Obama though - congress should have had the guts to actually declare war.

 

[Gilligan]

- congress should have had the guts to actually declare war.

On...what??..who?? :shrug:


Overall I'm fine with it. What?...three out of all the scum we've blasted with Hellfires were citizens and all three desparately deserved blasting.

 

[FreedomFan]

congress should have had the guts to actually declare war.

Eh, we gave that up 20 wars ago.

 

[Gilligan]

Eh, we gave that up 20 wars ago.

LOL. Yeah..declaring war is so yesterday

 

[MMDad]

Eh, we gave that up 20 wars ago.

It is amazing that Congress hasn't had the guts to do their job regarding war since 1942.

 

[PsyOps]

I have no problem with this and it would surprise me if any conservative did. Or maybe not, since it's policy under SATAN!'s watch and not a Republican's.

You'd think the libs would be losing their minds. Or maybe not, since it's policy under GOD!'s watch and not a Republican's.

Aside from the flaming hypocrisy that Obama so adamantly condemned Bush for torturing FOREIGN terrorists, don’t you see the problem allowing the president to unilaterally execute Americans he deems a terrorist? Apply a broader interpretation to this. Let’s say Baja – who has been a very outspoken critic of Obama – decides to go overseas somewhere. Then by some strange chance he is accused, without any due process, to having ties to a terrorist group while he’s overseas. They spot him and send in the drones. What about Sarai Sierra? Is it even remotely possible she was assumed to have ties to a terrorist group and was taken out? I’m not suggesting this is the case, but her death is currently a mystery. And as crazy as it sounds, Obama has extremely thin skin to criticism; could he use this as a means to consider anyone that disagree with him a threat to this country and thus a terrorist? I think this is very dangerous authority.

 

[GURPS]

You people are effed in your heads and have become the crazy Bush moonbats that you made fun of.

Really that is all you get out of that ?

Pres. Obama RAN for OFFICE on how evil the Bush Administration was for 'Enhanced Interrogation Techniques' were how the USA was NOW the Pariah of the World, for such despicable actions .... but killing Americans Overseas with drone strikes is OK

Actions btw that lead to intel on Bin Hidden .....

and the only point you think I am making is 'if it was Bush it would be ok'

some things are WRONG no matter who is doing them




NOT Fox News:

Repulsive progressive hypocrisy
A new poll shows deep support among liberals for the very Bush/Cheney policies they once pretended to despise


During the Bush years, Guantanamo was the core symbol of right-wing radicalism and what was back then referred to as the “assault on American values and the shredding of our Constitution”: so much so then when Barack Obama ran for President, he featured these issues not as a secondary but as a central plank in his campaign. But now that there is a Democrat in office presiding over Guantanamo and these other polices — rather than a big, bad, scary Republican — all of that has changed, as a new Washington Post/ABC News poll today demonstrates:

The sharpest edges of President Obama’s counterterrorism policy, including the use of drone aircraft to kill suspected terrorists abroad and keeping open the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have broad public support, including from the left wing of the Democratic Party.

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that Obama, who campaigned on a pledge to close the brig at Guantanamo Bay and to change national security policies he criticized as inconsistent with U.S. law and values, has little to fear politically for failing to live up to all of those promises.

The survey shows that 70 percent of respondents approve of Obama’s decision to keep open the prison at Guantanamo Bay. . . . The poll shows that 53 percent of self-identified liberal Democrats — and 67 percent of moderate or conservative Democrats — support keeping Guantanamo Bay open, even though it emerged as a symbol of the post-Sept. 11 national security policies of George W. Bush, which many liberals bitterly opposed.​

 

[MMDad]

On...what??..who?? :shrug:


Overall I'm fine with it. What?...three out of all the scum we've blasted with Hellfires were citizens and all three desparately deserved blasting.

If they want to be unilateral they need a declaration of war. Yes, the people got what they deserved. But without a declaration of war there should be some sort of oversight. They could meet with lawmakers and share the list. They could present it to a court for review. I don't know exactly what, but there has to be a way to have oversight.

I don't believe that it is being used to kill innocents or even political enemies. But who's to say the next guy won't? Precedents are powerful.

 

[MadDogMarine]

It is amazing that Congress hasn't had the guts to do their job regarding war since 1942.

No it isn't amazing! Not to me anyway.
As strange as it may seem, you can't make a war profit by declaring war?
So how do you get around not making a profit from a war. Simple!
You never declare it as a war, thereby not invoking the "Trading With The Enemy Act" which forbids the making a profit off the blood of our soldiers during war. Here is a link to a pro-Bush web site addressing the issue of Prescott Bush making a profit by funding the Nazi regime
The Straight Dope: Was President Bush's great-grandfather a Nazi?
"The central charge against Prescott Bush has a basis in fact. In 1942, under the Trading With the Enemy Act, the U.S. government seized several companies in which he had an interest. Prescott at the time was an investment banker with Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), which had funneled U.S. capital into Germany during the 1920s and '30s. Among the seized companies was the Union Banking Corporation (UBC) of New York, which was controlled by German industrialist Fritz Thyssen. Thyssen had been an early financier of the Nazi party — in fact, in 1941 he published a book entitled I Paid Hitler. Ergo, Prescott helped finance the Nazis."

With no more declaration of war, Lady Bird Johnson(wife of president Lyndon Johnson) was able to make a profit in Vietnam through her ownership of shares in KB&R(Kellog ,Brown & Root)

KB&R was a precursor to Dick Cheney's company Halliburton which obtained "no bid" contracts for services in Iraq(another undeclared war!)

Here is a New York Times Co, report on some of this activity
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/29/international/middleeast/29halliburton.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&

Once again I recommend people give serious consideration to USMC General Smedley Butler's book "War is a Racket" because IT IS A RACKET!

 

[migtig]

I'm really starting to think VA is the place to be:
City in Virginia Becomes First to Pass Anti-Drone Legislation - US News and World Report
Excerpt:
Charlottesville, Va., has become the first city in the United States to formally pass an anti-drone resolution.

The resolution, passed Monday, "calls on the United States Congress and the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia to adopt legislation prohibiting information obtained from the domestic use of drones from being introduced into a Federal or State court," and "pledges to abstain from similar uses with city-owned, leased, or borrowed drones."

- and -

9 States Want To Restrict Use Of Drones Over Concerns About Spying « CBS Seattle
Excerpt:
Lawmakers in at least 11 states are looking at plans to restrict the use of drones over their skies amid concerns the unmanned aerial vehicles could be exploited to spy on Americans.

From my reading those states are:
Montana, California, Oregon, Texas, Nebraska, Missouri, North Dakota, Florida, Virginia, Maine and Oklahoma

 

[Gilligan]

If they want to be unilateral they need a declaration of war. Yes, the people got what they deserved. But without a declaration of war there should be some sort of oversight. .

I don't disagree at all with the concept....I just can't help but note that in the case of a stateless globally scattered terror organization, there is no way war can be declared.

Maybe a new term and process is needed.