Excellent article.

going around killing innocent Americans, and saying that if BUSH did this he'd immediately be impeached. Funny how Bush didn't even get impeached for starting a war of choice based on lies which killed hundreds of thousands of people.

That's something everyone needs to know.

then you are "pathetic and totally predictable"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=394641

rah rah rahing for anything Assange says or does regardless of facts.

And told "You should be ashamed of yourself." http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2333771

Since when did the FACTS become anathema to so many DUers? I thought that is what we were all about....

It also undermines their arguments because it's hard to take anyone seriously who really believes Obama is going to target the Smith family as they vacation in Paris.

Frankly, the way this has been reported has bordered on negligence - but whatever. It's funny how so many people want to push the truth, demand the truth and then when the truth is released ... twist it to fit their argument. I've seen it here on DU, I've read it online ... it's pathetic.

reminiscent of the NRA talking points of "Obama's coming to take all our guns away".. works on some idiots but not the majority.

Hyperbole is never a good argument and sadly, that's what has gripped this entire debate. Instead of having a legitimate debate about drone strikes and what we maybe can do ... you've got people running around with their hair on fire. OMG! OBAMA IS GOING TO KILL US ALL!

OMG. As if Cheney and Rumsfield ever gave hoot about the law. Their end always justified their means and if you took away the drones they would find a way to subvert the process, just like Oliver North and Reagan did.

Either you have integrity or you don't. You cannot NOT use the tools that you have at your disposal to fight an enemy sworn to destroy you because, some future unscrupulous administration might act in an unscrupulous manner.

The Left's "hair on fire" moment has presented itself.

John McCain (R) wants the program to come under DoD not the CIA so that he as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee can provide oversight. While (Rep-Mich) Mike Rogers wants to keep it under the CIA where he as Chair of the House Intelligence Committee has oversight. Rogers says that there is already "adequate" oversight of the drone program's targeted killings. Did Rodgers say that because he likes Obama. I think NOT. Perhaps he was being honest; that the program has in fact "adequate" oversight. For those who want to put the decision in the hands of a FISA court judge. First of all, why do we expect judges to be any less partisian than they've proven to be in the past when it comes to Constitutional matters. What's Constitutional is in the eyes of the beholder these days.

So why not put the decision making in the hands of the elected officials, who took an oath to uphold the Constitution and at the same time defend this nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic, with sufficient oversight, which the program seems to have.

...until proven guilty in a court of law.

What ever happened to THAT?
.
.
.
.
Oh Yeah.
Like Bush did for torture, the White House got a note from their lawyer.

killing Americans AND/or take up arms against your own country, you lose your "innocent until proven guilty" status.

Please point me to the pertinent clause.


As an American Citizen,
I have the Right & Responsibility to

* Hear my government's case against the accused

*Examine the Evidence presented in a PUblic Trial

*Ensure that the Government's Case is valid.

As History has demonstrated,
when these steps are skipped for convenience,
BAD THINGS inevitable happen.

It must be nice to be so trusting of the government.
I'm glad our forefathers weren't,
and said so in those crusty, old, antiquated documents.

stands. If someone, American or not, does the things listed, they don't deserve our Constittional rights.

The boy, his cousin and bystanders all died by drone attack. By the way, he was a natural born American too.

When you wish death to America and start organizing, you are now an enemy combatant. I really dislike that phrase.

If you surround yourselves with the innocent, YOU put them in danger.

If we invaded, like Iraq and the Stan of Afghans, there would be many more dead while we march through a country to get him.

I don't have a clue what intel the President uses for targeting, but I don't think he acts as incompetently as Bush/Cheney Inc.

I guess we need many American casualties to balance the guilt if we do it with a drone. Right?

He was hanging out with known terrorists in a camp in Yemen.

As another DUer has explained in another thread about this:

Two U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity stated that the target of the October 14, 2011 airstrike was Ibrahim al-Banna, an Egyptian believed to be a senior operative in Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Another U.S. administration official described Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi as a bystander who was "in the wrong place at the wrong time", stating that "the U.S. government did not know that Mr. Awlaki’s son was there" before the airstrike was ordered.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2331096

Two U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity.

Sounds totally legit to me!

Seems to me the fact that the kid was in Yemen hanging out with terrorists is undisputed. Since he had not been in Yemen that long, having just left his home in Colorado, how would we even know where he was? It's not like he was hanging out with people who would relay such info to our government. Did his Egyptian mother back in Colorado call the State Department for help to bring him back if she knew he had run away to Yemen? So what "legit" source do you have that he was specifically targeted? 

If your three bullet points were possible, I'm sure the Obama administration would have observed them.

American citizens do NOT have the right to move to another nation, join a terrorist organization and teach others how to attack and kill Americans. If they do that they forfeit the rights "guaranteed" to them in the Constitution. They become the enemy, plain and simple. And the rules of war then apply.

gives congress the power "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" etc...

etc...on September 14, 2001, congress authorized military force to be used against the enemies who attacked us:

Section 1 - Short Title

This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

And, as should be clear, the conflict was then conducted according to the Uniform Code of Military Law, as has every previous war. That is the set of rules and laws that apply to warfare, and include all the various international agreements we are party to, Geneva Law, and so forth.

We've never conducted a war by heading out to arrest people and try them in court, unless they surrender - then its still a military tribunal and not a civil court. Citizenship is very much secondary - just consider how little it mattered in the civil war! If you take up arms against the country, joining or supporting a group that congress has declared war against, waving the constitution would be comically stupid.

... is that governments lie. Period. It's a fact. BTW, I agree with you. Reading down this thread, it's kind of hard to keep up with who agrees and who disagrees.
It's really weird... like people are talking past each other.

And pretty stupid.

you lose your "innocent until proven guilty" status when you.......

respectfully, just a question ...nothing more..

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Bush went to a place he shouldn't have, which has nothing to do with this issue.

There was not one person who didn't want to go after Alqueeda wherever they were after 9-11, and all of congress agreed with it. BUT NOT IRAQ.
Iraq was the one place they were not.

However, nobody ever said terrorists did not exist. And kill.

Don't like Bush?
Don't waste a vote on a third party who just wants to make megamilliions whining like both Ron Paul and Ralph Nader have done for decades.

BTW, I don't hate Ralph Nader.
Had HE been the democratic nominee, I would have voted for him.
But he never ran as a democratic candidate, nor does he have a geniuine bone in his body because of 2000 saying both are the same.And he never came close to winning, yet he directly caused 2000 keeping ten million voters home and not voting.

He used to care about the enviornment, and I would have thought he would hate corporate personhood.
Yet Ralph Nader directly gave us Alito and Roberts and bankrupted the nation, and caused the unemployment problem. Yeah, sure a democratic nominee would have picked those two who gave us these laws, yeah, sure.

Yet the concern over president Obama but not any of the others is mindboggling.

the fact that he was just an egotistical whiner who threw an election to the repulicans lost my trust in him forever.
Plus he has more money in his bank directly because of what he did in 2000.

and why do I get the hint that the same people will not vote in 2014 and vote for a different party in 2016 and then whine whine whine if Jeb Bush gets backed in

Because the alt-media gets rich off of this and conspiracy theories.

My loyalty to the President and the continuation of his agenda for decades more is knowing what has happened in the past and I don't want the past since Reagan repeated.

At least Nixon was smart enough not to allow a Bush to get a seat at the table.
yet those in the alt-media out there that put our President down, will do just that in 2016 if they could.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Frankly, it's hard to distinguish between the "Obaba, right or wrong" and the "Bush. right or wrong" mentalities. They're both bankrupt and anti-American because they profess allegiance to a person rather than to the country.

the fact that many here don't see that distinction only underscores my point.

have heard regards the complete lack of constitutional rights

Within the latter group is segment envisioning a world with no animosity toward America and no need for proactive military intervention to protect the homeland from enemies devoted to destroying Americans, and their rhetoric informs their naïveté.

It is freaking creepy to see this sort of BS posted by a prolific DU poster, and to see all the support it's getting. Do DUers no longer care about principles when they're slightly inconvenient?

I see, it only applies to Americans.
when they jump the fence they lose the right to a life.

and any 'military aged males' that just happen to die via a drone strike that are conveniently reclassified as terrorists, that were previously just bakers or doctors or whatever. They lose that right too.

Obama was allowed into office so that HIS brain-dead followers would come on board with torture and murder. Downright disgusting.

a charismatic leader talks otherwise decent people into believing that murder is OK, that teachers are bad, that liberals are to blame for huge deficits so Medicare has to be cut, and so on. and you have to admit that Obama could talk a lot of people into pretty much anything.

and it's something right out of National Review.

homepage and was going back to read it.

Where would they be without their Hyperbole? Discussing it rationally? Not a chance. That doesn't bring in the donor dollars.

that some of his followers will carry out a mass killing of American civilians?

It isn't a matter of deluding ourselves into believing in an idealistic Utopia in which we are safe from violent extremists.

The issue is how we decide who is a threat.

One thing that has bothered me is that a number of fools who were assisted in planning fake bomb attacks by undercover agents here in the US are considered terrorists and have even been tried and convicted as terrorists.

On the other hand the guy who shot Gabrielle Giffords and killed bystanders at the same time for what to any reasonable mind had to have been the purpose of political intimidation at the very least was treated as a criminal. He got a psychiatric appraisal, the whole works.

And I don't care about that. Obviously the guy that shot Giffords was in the US and Al-Awlaki was not. But what I want to know is just how we decide who is an ordinary criminal entitled to the due process of our law under our Constitution and who is a terrorist and not covered by the constitutional right to due process?

Why is someone who thus far at least to my knowledge had not yet killed anyone considered a terrorist while someone who took military weapons to a political meet and greet in a mall tried as a criminal?

What are the criteria? How can a person know whether he or she is doing something or discussing something or meeting with someone that might cause him or her to be considered a terrorist or a supporter of terrorism?

How can someone know that they can go and shoot a bunch of people and not be labeled a terrorist? What is the definition of a terrorist? of terrorism? I would like a definition that can be applied consistently so that an Al Awlaki can know that he or she is crossing the line and so that I who post on DU can know that I am not crossing the line when I express an idea that some may not like.

Vague lines between crime and innocence allow for a lot of arbitrary decisions. It's not that Obama is making arbitrary decisions, but the purpose of clear laws is that they prevent or greatly discourage unfair treatment, arbitrary decisions, even corruption. We need clarity, and people in other countries who may be sucked in by terrorist groups also need clarity if they are to say no and avoid paying a price for their foolishness and ignorance.

the following:

"When senators pressed Brennan to have judicial oversight of drone strike decisions where they concerned Americans, he said it could be considered but doubted whether a court could evaluate intelligence on whether a militant posed a threat. Why can intelligence bureaucrats make that evaluation but judges cannot? Occasionally the arrogance of the intelligence aristocracy peaked out at the hearing."

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/15933-focus-top-ten-surprises-of-the-brennan-hearing

How many us troops or law enforcement people(of the relevant type) are you willing to sacrifice in order to bring somebody to trial?

Just as many as we are willing to risk killing them.

How many Seal Team 6 members did we send?

And engaging in activities with Al Qaeda, Al-Awlaki has essentially put on the uniform of an enemy nation and thus we can kill him without trial because you're allowed to kill enemy soldiers without trial. He still of course, ought to have been able to surrender to the authorities, and avail himself of his rights under the US constitution.

The problem is that the 2001 AUMF doesn't say taking up residence in Pakistan or Yemen and it doesn't explicitly say anything about Al Qaeda. It says that the President, more or less, can use war powers against anyone at any time and anywhere he sees fit to respond to the attacks on 9/11. That's way too much power, in my opinion.

And morally here's where I find a problem. There hasn't actually been an existential threat to the United States (other than the Soviet Union, which we never went to war with) since Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Is it really worth killing hundreds of civilians to keep fighting an enemy that has zero probability of ever defeating us?

Until the rest of the liberal blogosphere is done with their collective hissyfit.

I suspect that Obama ordered the release of the information on the use of drones to provoke discussion. That said, the rules of WWII don't apply to today's situation. At one time, armies dressed their troops in bright colors and met by appointment on the battle field. We don't do that any more, either.

Although, with their 'new' young (old) leader going crazier by the day, who knows when they will...

AMERICAN CITIZENS ARE ENTITLED TO DUE PROCESS. I don't have it in me to give a fucking inch on that. Of course that man would not want me on his jury, but distinguishing one piece of scum from another like that? Our bankers, our oilmen, our congressmen have killed far more Americans but I don't see drones at their palatial homes. I don't even see perp walks.

.....in an anti-American country alongside al Qaeda? How do you give that person "due process"?

I don't mind a little creativity.

ng 450 others. I wouldn't have minded a drone taking him out, along with Nichols, beforehand....would you?

then you ARE condoning the death of anyone killed by that bomb. As any "reasonable American" knows, sometimes "innocent civilians" get in the way of bombs and other weapons that weren't meant for them, and that sometimes weapons don't go where they are intended..such deaths are entirely foreseeable and, in fact, pretty much inevitable.

If you shoot at one person with the intention of murdering them, but miss and kill someone else instead, you are still both legally and morally responsible for the death, whether you intended it or not.

both literally and figuratively.

Last edited Sat Feb 9, 2013, 07:45 PM - Edit history (1)

The question that the author of this otherwise well-written piece so studiously is avoiding is
"why exactly do so many people in impoverished & exploited nations have such an intense
unyielding hatred of the USofA?"

This is why 4-star General Wilkerson describes the drone program as totally "counter-productive"
in that it's CREATING more terrorists than it is eliminating. In these nations, family is
everything, and we're creating nations filled with rage at a remote arrogant nation who
murdered their father, mother, child, husband, uncle, cousin, et. al. without there being any
criminal charges brought, without a chance to prove suspicions of guilt to be incorrect, etc.

but the way the press are spinning out of control it seems like there is much more too it than is being talked about, and I don't like how they are applying it to saying that he can kill anyone, anywhere, at any time for no reason. He isn't doing anything new, this has been happening for a long time, now he can just do it without risking our personnel, or massive collateral with a missile.

However this line: "His civil liberties as an American citizen were forfeited, including “due process.” " is so wrong, on so many levels, I couldn't begin to explain how infuriated it makes me.

methinks your attitude about this program will flip 180.

DU should be embarrassed for supporting this BS.

And thank you also for giving us sensible people a refuge from those paranoid people who are gnashing their teeth and pulling their hair out.

I'm still waiting for the "Occupy Drone" rally outside the White House!

president takes his oath of office he swears before God to do only one thing, and that is to uphold the Constitution and to do that against all enemies foreign and domestic. He is not at liberty to cherry pick which articles he will enforce. The Bill of Rights guarantees due process of law to all US citizens. The poster states: "Al-Awlaki was American born, but when he inspired the Fort Hood shooter and underwear bomber to kill innocent Americans, his civil liberties as an American citizen were forfeited, including “due process.” They most categorically were not. Only a court has the legal authority to strip an American citizen of his or her life or liberty, and then only after due process. Even then, the guilty may not be subject to torture or any form of cruel punishment. When George Bush discarded his oath of office and began torturing and killing people, he was justifiably considered a criminal. Barack Obama is no different.

The Constitution does not authorize a president to commit extra-judicial killings of American citizens for any reason, nor does it give him the authority to declare anyone's citizenship or constitutional rights forfeit.

To hear the outrage there must be over 20 at least.

One is too many does not fly when we also have the death penalty.

We execute the mentally ill fercrissakes!

Even Bill Maher doesn't have too big a problem with this.

How about the fact that we let 45,000 Americans die each year without health insurance. And none of them went to Yemen to hang out with terrorists. They died needless deaths here in the good ol' USA. Right now, we're trying to push through single payer in California, our nation's most populace state. I posted about that. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10403008 Not a single Reply. No one gives a shit. Everyone's too busy running around with their hair on fire over the accidental death in 2011 of the son of a committed terrorist, who was killed because he was literally standing with the targeted terrorists.

to be just as ridiculous, full of paranoia and hyperbole. The use of terms such as "war", "imminent danger", "mass-killings", "they want to destroy America/civilization", etc. I have to laugh. Can we have some perspective please? Listening to the pro-drone strike people, you would think there are armies of terrorists right off of American shores ready to invade, when this isn't the case at all.

And we are truly lost.

Question: So does anyone know who "Rmuse" is from Politicususa.com? Thanks.

My question? Well I, too, thought Politicususa was usually a damn good site. But this is not an article. It's an opinion piece strongly bent in one direction. When I come upon something like this, I like to know who the author is. It sounds like it came straight out of CentCom.

....this thread is sort of funky in a way. A bit twilight zonish or something. Like people are talking past each other, agreeing with others who disagree with them. It's really been hard to keep up with.

Well, thank you. Your answer indicates that I am not going out of my mind, that the piece that babylonsister has linked to should be questioned. When I read opinion, I like to know who the writer is, what their background is, who they have written for before... associations, previous employers, etc., etc. This person sounds like they have a ball in the game, if you get my drift. I gave up believing everything that comes across a computer screen a long time ago.

representation (section 1021) and also makes propaganda perfectly legal. HR347 makes it a federal crime with up to 10 years in prison for protesting where secret service are present (Obama just signed lifetime SS protection for himself and W Bush). DHS are pushing for CISPA 2.0. The warrantless wiretap bill FISA was just signed into another five years of activity. The NDRP allows the government to sieze citizens property and land, IIRC, during time of war. Note that we are in a permanent, incredibly profitable state of war. DARPA have unclassified a 1.8 gigapixel drone which can ID a person from 20,000 feet (goodbye 4th Amendment). And if you've been watching what has been done to the OWS movement, but in juxtaposition, NOT to the corrupt wall streeters and banksters who nearly drove us into a second great depression (and that the vast majority of the economies subsequent recovery has gone to the very rich), you'll note that something does not smell right in this country. Not at all. Add the targeted killing of Americans and it smells far, far worse. 64 drone bases are being built within the US. 80 agencies have applied for drone permits. 50 countries around the world have helped the US rendition prisoners to secret prisons. Within the US, the so-called war on drugs has resulted in the US having the highest incarceration rate in the world, with 46% of prisoners there from drug-related offences. For-profit prisons are advertising 90% occupancy rates to investors (this is just as wrong as when for-profit medical care/HMOs were denying life-saving operations because they would cut profits).

DHS, FBI, and federal agents have been monitoring and attending peaceful protests (1st Amendment-based protests). FBI has been ransacking activists' apartments for "literature". Anarchists and Occupiers are being taken as political prisoners in the northwest, Chicago, and Cleveland. DHS has been militarizing police departments and sheriff agencies with armored vehicles and military weaponry and tech, as well as making police departments into tentacles via the iWatch program. TSA were gropinating Super Bowl attendees and will be at Mardi Gras, as well as so-called VIPR teams on SF and Texas trains and buses. Did you know the government are now installing microphones on city buses, to monitor conversations? And that the military have been for more than a year, running co-ordinated drills over our cities (Miami, LA, etc.) with police departments (who are already DHS tools)? What the fuck. What the fuck.

Oh yeah, and this:

No suspicion necessary: DHS can still seize belongings without reason http://on.rt.com/sa5tz3

and this:

How Corporations Make Money from Prison Labor: They’re Happy to Have More Inmates

http://www.techyville.com/2013/02/news/how-corporations-make-money-from-prison-labor-theyre-happy-to-have-more-inmates/


I've posted stories on all of these items here in GD and in Occupy Underground, or seen them here. Be very very careful of begging to give away your freedoms.

... the equivalent of, "So? What's the problem?"

Fucking unbelievable.

Not too mention that they completely side-step the fact that someone could be mis-identified as a "terrorist," instead relying on the red herring that since one is a terrorist, they have no due process rights.

Morality, adherence to the rule of law, ethics, have all gone out the window because someone's panic impulse is in overdrive. Sorry, but I don't want someone with a sensitive panic response making decisions of life and death. Not to mention that it's not only the president who can make these decisions, but other staff officials per the memos.

I see a lot of DUers becoming servile to authority much like their neocon counterparts.

ETA: I'm on my phone typing this by thumb or I would have a lot more to say. I did feel the need to respond, however.

anything resembling a problem and those with jaws hanging loose in disbelief at what is occurring.

Taken out-of-context but still very true in essence:

"...the...moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice..."

~MLK, Jr. on those not supporting his Civil Rights movement and non-violent direct action.

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/01/mlk-and-the-peace-process.html

Would you accept the use of drones to kill a White Supremacist who goes to hate rallies and does hate music? They speak out against America and wish to do harm to its citizens. In fact, I'm sure you can draw a direct causal link between White supremacist websites and literature to acts of terror. They've had a history of terrorism going back decades.

If a White supremacist moved out of the country and started spewing White Power and calling for white americans to kill their African American neighbors, would you simply bomb them, or would you give them due process? Would you attempt to capture them and put them on trial? Would you allow them their first amendment rights to spew whatever hate they want? Would they stop being Americans?

This is Bush 2.0, plain and simple.

I'm one of those "wacky" people you all love to hate, and I see you all as shills. Obama is President and then everything becomes permissible. The libertarians were right. When push comes to shove you're the same as Republicans, except you just have this antipathy towards the rich.

Whether they intend to or not, they don't seem to care that is appears that their FIRST PRIORITY is to GET Obama, why else would they damage their own case against drone programs????



http://www.democraticunderground.com/101797576#post11

al-alwaki and the kid.

Please proceed with the outrage.

At what point does it become unacceptable?

This site is officially lost. This country is officially lost.

There is no hope.

It all got like this, drone programs and all, because people have been lazy and ir-responsible "patriots". What if they fundamentally change their activities and involvement in their own leadership?

I'm always troubled by assumptions that the status quo lowest common denominator is the ONLY possibility, especially when we have tried little else and our current corruption has evolved into mortal opposition to available alternatives to drone programs, such as reforming the U.N. and committing to it and also reforming the World Court.

We continue to protect private Fast-and-Furious style assault weapons markets around the world and our government continues to be the biggest arms merchant on Earth; we bitch about the Big Brother New World Order housed at the U.N. and destabilizing all kinds of countries through the IMF; then we freak out about the World Court - AND NOW - bitch about drone programs that are the current response to all of that destabilization. Have you seen the increasing severity of World Drought projections for the next ten years? Destabilization squared coming right up.

The anti-drone critique is valid, but it invalidates itself too, by pretending that NOTHING is going to happen, or that what does happen doesn't matter and then mortally fighting anything else (the U.N. & the World Court) that could begin the steps toward better responses to the world's situations and then exacerbate the whole thing even worse by trying to destroy one of the few people we can trust in the middle of all of this, PO, and thus playing directly into the hands of his bosses and our owner/masters the world hegemony.

People want to have their cake and to eat it too and they want it served up on a silver platter without having to get up out of their sofa recliners and away from their tvs and changing their lives in order to make drones as un-necessary as possible. PO is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, so if I wer he, I'd listen respectfully then go with the best rational facts possible.

get rid of drones.

Actually, it's more the entire planet is lost (and not enough policies will be enacted in time to save it).

Like: 2045 - Smells like Venus...

Good effin luck, humans...

... ignore some very elementary logical fallacies.

This has never been about a stealthy drone striking some innocent American family in Kansas - not by any reasonable measure.

but let's not lose our heads over it. US Citizens throwing their lot in with AQ should expect that they are likely to be treated in a similar manner as other AQ members if they are out of this country beyond the reach of our law enforcement capabilities. The fact that they are *American citizens* shouldn't be able to be used as a "shield" against drone strikes in other countries where they are residing IMHO.

Um, no. It is the legality of targetted killing that bears scrutiny.

drones are NOTHING.

eom

following Occupy demonstrators at parades? Why did this cop say extra police and federal agents were at the parade specifically because of Occupy?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022137604

Why are DHS turning police departments into tentacles via the iWatch program, and handing them military gear, tech, and transports? Why is CISPA being resurrected? Why was FISA signed again? Why was the NDAA signed again, with its provision for the indefinite detention of US citizens without trial or representation (section 1021)?

DHS and FBI appear to be treating the Occupy Wall Street movement as at least potential terrorists (I believe they already classify us as that). When the definition of terrorist begins sliding against peaceful protesters using the Bill of Rights, I worry terribly. Occupy were systematically attacked, the camps cleared, for protesting real actual crime by the corporate elite, who have since gone utterly unpunished or regulated. 7400+ Occupiers have been arrested, some of them beaten bloody. For peacefully protesting real crime. DHS and FBI appear to think this is potential terrorism, and again, I worry terribly. Will the lines continue to blur? Don't suspect your neighbor, turn them in!

Enough with the Nazis.

Nothing compares so drop it!

eom

The targeting of al Awlaki didn't bother me - it was obvious he was a traitor. But the memo that was released did bother me and I thought that it gave Obama too broad powers. Then I read The Magistrate's very thoughtful posting.

The data on all of these things is almost overwhelming, so much happening now.

there's no telling how the next guy might use it.

That's when the CIA was chartered. They've been carrying out extra-judicial executions, theoretically on the president's say-so, ever since. To Obama's credit he's attempting to introduce some long-overdue accountability, and predictably, getting blamed for another sordid mess he didn't invent.

And I agree, it's very problematic. That's never stopped us from cheering on James Bond and his stateside brethren but now seems like a good time to take a critical view at the whole business.

OP is absolute horseshit! No one here would put up with this shit from W,
and rightly show.

The question is not whether or not this one person deserved to die. That's a distraction. Nor is the question whether this person deserved the protection of our constitution and the rule of law. The question is do you deserve these things, do your kids deserve them, do ALL men deserve them. You are not deciding on what rights apply to terrorists or enemies of the state, you are deciding what rights apply to everyone. You cannot abandon the one without destroying the other.

There are landmark moments in history. This is one of them. This is the moment when we decided we no longer care about the constitution or basic human rights, we no longer care about trials or juries or the rule of law. This is the moment the American people decided that they really don't have any problem with their own government killing them. Not spying on them, not patting them down in airports, actually killing them.

Landmark moments. This is when we gave up as a nation. We weren't conquered, we were scared, and I don't even have the words to express how sad and pathetic this moment is. I am embarrassed for my nation and my party.

for once, or some of it, instead of just being lied to. But a lot of us are blaming the messenger.

Carpet bombing, covert death squads, covert biological warfare, open war and all the rest. Obama promised transparency and that's what he's giving us, and it turns out we don't like the lesser evil, either. Fine, let's abolish the whole shootin' match and rename the DoD the Department of Peace. But the drone program is a modest part of a much bigger problem, distinguished mainly by the fact that we've been told about it.

But he is human, not an all-knowing god. Mistakes happen, and sometimes people act on bad information. That is why having checks and balances in the decision-making process can't hurt. Further, it might prevent a situation where a future POTUS does want to harm an innocent American.

Last edited Sun Feb 10, 2013, 04:05 AM - Edit history (1)

as long as as that foreign entity had a secret panel to decide who were legitimate targets and as long as any children they killed were only an accident - just what's the big deal anyway? If some Middle Eastern country were to carry out such operations inside America - would that not only make that Middle Eastern nation more popular among us all? Would it not cause us to abandon any thoughts of ever attacking them or egressing them in anyway? So why would Yemenis or whoever be any different? Obviously these drones can only be defusing tension and promoting good and will just as they would be if some Middle Eastern nation or political grouping were doing the same inside America. Why can't people understand this? Besides as long as these exercises are conducted by a Democratic Commander and Chief - we know they can be trusted. We will have plenty of time to complain when a Republican directs these operations.

Glad to see people on this forum keeping their moral compass unlike Republicans.

carry out military strikes inside the United States against people who they blame for killing or being complicit in killing their people and if some American civilians were killed as "collateral damage" perhaps at a wedding party or something like that-obviously the U.S. government would support it and so would most Americans. No doubt that country would become very popular. Let's say Iran did something like that. That would no doubt promote such good will between Americans and the Iranians or instill a bit of respect - it would virtually remove any possibility of the U.S. every going to war.

People keep assuming that Al Qaeda operators are civilians, yet this was a folly of the Bush administration, to avoid giving them legal protections required by the United Nations. In reality, Al Qaeda fighters are soldiers, not civilians, and the standard military rules of engagement should apply - sniper rifles and drone strikes are both perfectly acceptable against enemy soldiers.

What the Bush administration did was highly illegal, in United States law and international law, but don't let his 'legal decision' cloud your judgement - Taliban fighters are hostile soldiers, nothing more, nothing less, and they should be treated as such.

1. We have enemies (so we have to kill them).

2. Some enemies are American and some enemies are probably tough to capture.

3. No one knows why or how the targets are chosen, but I am sure it is for the best of reasons, really.

4. If an American is bad, he automatically becomes NOT an American.

5. In the real world, Constitutional Rights are tough to provide. This is the real world. Return to #1 above.

No, pun intended. Great post, Bonobo!

"Due process" is what determines whether a person is actually guilty of the charges against him.

The evidence against al-Awlaki may have been overwhelming, but how much gray area is involved with other extrajudicial executions?

How many innocent people have been targeted, and how many innocent people have become "collateral damage"?

I don't doubt our president has directed there must be a high level of confidence before putting someone on a kill list, but evidence can be misinterpreted or fabricated anywhere along the chain from informant to CIA headquarters.

An actual "imminent threat" is cause for action, but the redefinition of the word "imminent" in the recently uncovered memo is the kind of Orwellian doublespeak I would expect from the administration of GW Bush.

I believe our government should have this capability in extreme circumstances and as a last resort, but I am very concerned that extrajudicial executions will fly further and further under that threshold as precedents are established and subsequent administrations are tempted to make wider use of it.

And I also question whether such killings are breeding more moles than we're whacking, while alienating our friends in the process.

my problems with the drone policy don't involve any kind of image of Obama, I am not preoccupied like Rmuse is with Obama's personality. My problems with the drone policy are with its legality, and with the precedent it is setting, and with whether it is going to backfire on us.

It's so frustrating how all these serious issues get sucked into the useless preoccupation with Obama's personality.

to avoid the real debate. It includes everything from portraying Obama as just like Bush only better at it to screaming that Obama is going to kill Americans. If you don't agree with the rhetoric, you're immoral. Yet organizations like the ACLU focus on the issue of trying to sort out the process, and even they will admit that there are instances where lethal force is justified. The issue is who gets to define those instances.

The issue is real and it's not going away. In 2002, another U.S. citizen was killed in Yemen, though it was originally stated that he was not the target.

And I think the killing of Al Awlaki fits into the conditions that Human Rights Watch calls for ("al-Qaeda role," "no control over area" and "no reasonable law enforcement alternative&quot . But the Naderites and Obama haters here saw only an opportunity to bash Obama. To a hammer, everything is a nail.

the fact that he is, legally, a US citizen seems to me to be a moot point when openly allying yourself with a terrorist group like AQ outside of the US.

its amazing how quickly people turn their back on Pres. Obama- and that also over a known terrorist...smh