Roland Keysers comment says it all. That is something everyone should read.
Quit blaming the tyrant George Bush. Obama has been in office for 5 years. If he
was any better than Bush he would've have quit with these strikes.
It's like me going out and killing someone and then justifying my actions
by blaming it on Ted Bundy.
I guess it doesn't matter that 170 children were killed in these drone
strikes. I wish Obama would've brought that up when he was hiding behind
that sandy hook children.
Bush did use drone strikes. And to the innocent that are killed it doesn't
matter if it was a cruise missile, C-130 or a drone that did it. When there are drones above that occasionally lob off drones at the
supermarket, you will understand.Panetta actually said that drone
strikes are NOT for acts already commited, they are to keep future acts from
happening. Minority Report anyone?
It's only wrong when a demo does it. Repubs had no objection to using
drones when bush was president.
@spring streetThe whole point of my post is that the memo released
says that there doesn't need to be an imminent threat to order a strike.
That is problematic to me. I do think there needs a standard for a significant
threat to order a drone strike, and an elevated standard to specifically strike
to get a US citizen. The loosy-goosy version that is being defended in the memo
uses words like 'suspected terrorist', and 'no imminent threat
required' to specifically attack a citizen of the USofA. These open the
door to imperial assassinations for political gains, a door that I don't
think Americans want to open, not even for their chosen guy.That is
a far cry from initiating and attack on a known terrorist base consisting of
people from countries who hate us, who are violently occupying some territory.
Obviously there is documentation about what these guys are doing in Mali, per
the DN Wed edition. That would justify a drone strike. Safer for the locals than
letting Al-quaeda stay in charge.The language of the memo sounded
more like the terrorists' creeds than the USofA.
Agree.The slipery slope comments by republicons are expected.republicons have learned their lessons well from the likes of dick,
condie and karl et al..
@spring streetMy point was we should not be killing non convicted
criminals unless they present an immediate threat. Simply being in a
"terrorist camp" is not an immediate threat. An immediate threat is a
terrorist with a bomb strapped to him ready to carry out detonation. Unless there is that immediate threat, they should be apprehended, charged,
tried and convicted as required by the Constitution. "No person shall be
held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a
presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury... nor be deprived of life, liberty,
or property, without due process of law."
So let me be clear I do not think at the end of the day drone attacks or even
further military action is going to end terrisom and we need to be taking a hard
look at how we need to react differently to the people that are most likely to
sympathize with and may turn to terrorism having said that let me ask
those of you that are so outraged about the death of the 16 year old, why was he
in that terrorist camp to begin with? there was a significant gap between when
his father died and he went to and stayed in the camp with the people the drone
Sorry that was suppose to be a t darell not giseppe
@badgerSo if we know they are actively working to be a part of taking
action to harm others but we do not have idirect access to them and likely will
not do we just sit on our hands? @giuseppewe also kill alleged not
convicted violent criminals when they posse a threat to us so what is your
re Tolstoy: That guy's 16 yr old son was killed a month after his dad was
killed. Not in the same strike. Otherwise I agree with Badgerbadger &
The issue is not drones, it is the targeted assassination of American citizens
who are only suspected of being terrorists. No proof, no due process, just
suspected. We treat illegal immigrants better. They get some measure
of due process, and if they it is probable they are guilty of something, we send
them back to their country.If a policeman shoots a suspect, there is
a thorough investigation. If they shoot an innocent person, they are charged
with the appropriate crime.But not for drone assassinations. The
president can order them, and there is no follow-up to make sure it was
warranted. The memo argues for the president to have absolute power to order a
hit on a citizen if he wants to. I wonder if talk radio folks are on
the suspected terrorists list, or conservative congressmen? All the president
has to do is get them out of the country, call them terrorists, and kaboom, they
are gone. Creepy and Scary!So let's not pretend this is about
drones, or that it is a partisan issue. Those drones should be
used, on terrorist amputating butcherers in Mali, instead of on our citizens.
@Tolstoy,Being in the military, there are Rules of Engagement, and
the police are bound by similar rules. There are clearly defined rules when a
policeman can even point a gun at someone, and even tighter as to when they can
fire.The police are only allowed to fire if they believe there is an
IMMEDIATE threat to themselves or others near by. As soon as the threat is
gone, use of deadly force is no longer authorized. I.E. if someone was shooting
at me, and then they lay down their arms, deadly force is no longer
authorized."nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law" - 5th Ammendment.
@david king Is it assassination to kill an violent criminal that posses a
threat to society if they are held up here and the police kill them and that
persons son gets killed? It is sad and every step possible needs to be taken to
avoid it but calling it an assassination seems more like rhetoric then anything
else to me. I agree it is time to take partisan blinders of in that same
vain I have to ask why call just those that call bush worse and not going after
those that supported bush but don't support Obama? Maybe you need to remove
your own blinders as well.
Assassinating American citizens without charges or a trial, especially in the
case of Anwar Al-awlaki's 16 year old son, is wrong. I echo the sentiments
of Roland Kayser, although I'm very disappointed that so many of the
regular commenters here just want to make this a partisan issue, or about how
Bush was worse, or somehow tie it to guns. It's time for many of us to
take the party blinders off and really think about the principle of the U.S.
government claiming the power to assassinate its own citizens without ever
charging them with a crime.
@darreldo you feel the same way when a violent criminal is held up
and the police have to kill them to protect the general public? I have serious
concerns about how we decide who to target but to claim that their rights are
being taken away seems a bit of a stretch.
And yet -- This morning, I listened to Glenn Beck tell his listeners
that the U.S. had drones over Benghazi and that Obama did nothing.So, WHICH is it? - 9/12, Tea-Party, Republublican, we hate everything
Obama-ites?Anything to whipe up the masses, scare them into
buying something.Bush drones good.Obama drones bad.Petty Politicals.
Drones kill countless more civilians than terrorists. Despite the
administration's claims of few civilians killed, multiple independent
reports show otherwise. Exact numbers are impossible to obtain, but a recent
study from Columbia Law School's Human Rights Institute reports that
civilian deaths are "significantly and consistently underestimated",
while as much as 98% of drone strike casualties are civilians--which works out
to 50 innocents killed for every "suspected terrorist".Not
only do these numbers indicate the lack of effectiveness of drone strikes to
protect the United States and eliminate terrorists, but even more important,
drone strikes that leave dozens of innocent people dead creates a new set of
enemies and a situation rife with blowback--creating far more potential
"terrorists" furious for revenge--and rendering drone warfare hugely
counter-productive as well as ineffective.
Drone strikes began in 2001. Obama was elected President in 2008. Have a good day.
@ Roland Kayser,Very well said. What I find most disturbing is the
ordered killings of US Citizens overseas. To me that is a blatant neglect of
the 5th Amendment. The Constitution makes no provision for "unless they are
suspected of terrorism."I was horrified at the suspension of
habeus corpus and warrantless wiretappings of the previous administration. I
was glad Obama campaigned on doing away with those and disappointed he has
not.Maybe it boils down to being easy to criticize the President
when are applying for the job, and then something changed when he realized that
he his personally responsible for our safety as a nation. That does not give
him a free pass, but it's the only thing that really makes sense.
The 1st U.S. military drone was developed 100 years ago in 1913."Fire
and forget" technology has been military standard for 50 years.The whining and crying we hear is that when Bush [or any other Republican]
does it, it's GOOD.when Obama or any Democrat does it, it'd
The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a drone is a good guy with a
drone.Let's put drones in every classroom.
This is more of the same hypocracy that we see by the ideological politicians
and talking heads all the time. But one thing is certain, if this was a
Republican president in office, the main media outlets would be a thousand times
Alternives to drone strikes include more troops on the ground to go after a
target. What's the fuss over just one of many effective weapons in our
arsenal? It gives us an option in a world where the U.S. military has a vital
role to play against hostile threats.
When it comes to politics we all suffer from a team mentality. What our team
does is good, what the other team does is bad. Democrats complained loudly about
Bush's war on terror policies, while Republicans defended them. Obama
largely continued those same policies, whereupon Democrats shut up and
Republicans started criticizing.The team mentality probably
can't be changed, but we should all analyze our own positions to see if we
really justify them, or if we're just supporting the team.