Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Far left and far right unite on drone strikes

RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 12:04:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Memos have surfaced from the Justice Department providing legal justification for the President making up lists of persons, including Americans, for targeted assassination by drone strikes. The criteria are so broad as to include anyone associated with terrorism. So waterboarding is deemed "torture" by the President and completely prohibited by law, but, hey, to kill someone, it's purely a matter of his judgement.

What's interesting is that far left commentators like MSNBC's Ed Schultz and ex-Congressman Dennis Kucinich are allied with right-wingers like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity on the issue, and for the same reasons. Some of the far left is supporting the President, of course, but it's far from uniform. The White House position is the powers of Commander in Chief extend to kill lists.

Legal precedent goes back to World War II when the Supreme Court ruled that Americans who receive training from an enemy force have de facto renounced citizenship and may be treated as enemy combatants. In the GITMO litigation, the Court ruled that there must be a procedure for determining whether or not someone is an enemy combatant in order to keep them locked up. Congress subsequently adopted a procedure whereby a military tribunal determines enemy combatant status, with one level of appeal to civilian courts allowed.

It seems to me that a similar procedure should be used to determine if citizens have de facto renounced citizenship and joined terrorists. There would be an exception for battlefield situations when someone is shooting at allied forces.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 12:29:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Reddit, which is usually flooded with pro-obama news stories and threw as much dung at Romney as they could during the campaign, currently have a massively upvoted article titled "President Barack Obama, who once denounced George W. Bush-era security measures, has not just amplified Bush"s programs, but has begun hunting down and prosecuting officials who leak details."

http://www.reddit.com...

Pretty much everybody hates this.

The only upvoted supportive comment is this:

"My thoughts on this aren't that Obama is a hypocrite for saying this back then, but rather, was naive and did not have all the information that President Bush had at the time.
I imagine that after the 2008 inauguration, Obama is just sitting there, being briefed on everything the President needs to know and he just stares off into space thinking, "Maybe Bush wasn't overreacting."
I mean, you kind of have to wonder, that if two completely different administrations with different policies start to fall into the same alignment and place, there must be something happening that is "forcing" them into that position.
I'm not saying what they have done is the right way to go about things. I'm just thinking out loud here."
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 2:40:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If you get killed by a drone - you're a terrorist (in the eyes of the law). The thinking goes that if you are close enough to the intended target, you must be a terrorist because we only target terrorists.

Guilt by association - killing citizens - naive? Seems exactly the opposite of that to me.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 2:56:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
When pushed as to the legality of killing Anwar al-Alwaiki's 16 year old son, Robert Gibbs stated that to avoid being killed, he "should have [had] a far more responsible father"

Though one thing is universal in the media, they are just now talking about it, after the election. Despite the fact that the issues in question were raised months, if not years ago.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 3:09:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It should be pointed out, in case anyone is wondering how this stuff is politically possible, that the overwhelming majority of Americans (83%) support the use of drones: http://www.bbc.co.uk...
Orpheus
Posts: 60
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 3:18:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 3:09:35 PM, Kinesis wrote:
It should be pointed out, in case anyone is wondering how this stuff is politically possible, that the overwhelming majority of Americans (83%) support the use of drones: http://www.bbc.co.uk...

Drones save American troop lives. They kill people Americans don't think about and no one really sees them. Of course we support them. They're good for our conscious and make sense from a military standpoint.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 3:30:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
We value the lives of our soldiers higher than that of any given Afghan, Pakistan, etc. civilian.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 3:53:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 3:18:07 PM, Orpheus wrote:
At 2/7/2013 3:09:35 PM, Kinesis wrote:
It should be pointed out, in case anyone is wondering how this stuff is politically possible, that the overwhelming majority of Americans (83%) support the use of drones: http://www.bbc.co.uk...

Drones save American troop lives. They kill people Americans don't think about and no one really sees them. Of course we support them. They're good for our conscious and make sense from a military standpoint.

Official numbers from various studies show that Obama's drone strikes only kill 15% militants, the rest civilians. He's not even identifying the people by name to know they're a threat. In fact, he redefined the word militant to be any person standing in his predefined battle zone so that media reports that he killed militants.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 3:58:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Liberal logic:

It's bad when Bush waterboarded 3 foreign terrorist suspects, but it's ok when Obama kills American citizens with a drone strike without any charges,c just their whims.

And I don't want to hear the excuse, "but the liberals are condemning Obama now." Too late! I said this two years ago. Where were the Liberals when Obama killed a 16 year old American boy over a year ago? It took an NBC news doc leak for them to speak up?

Shame on all of them. Liberals are chiefs of hypocrisy.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 4:08:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 3:30:51 PM, lewis20 wrote:
We value the lives of our soldiers higher than that of any given Afghan, Pakistan, etc. civilian.

As it should be
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 5:16:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 3:30:51 PM, lewis20 wrote:
We value the lives of our soldiers higher than that of any given Afghan, Pakistan, etc. civilian.

Whose this "we?"

I'm failing to see a we in here. Just say, "Obama" or "the government." Not much of a "we."
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 5:21:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 12:04:49 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Memos have surfaced from the Justice Department providing legal justification for the President making up lists of persons, including Americans, for targeted assassination by drone strikes. The criteria are so broad as to include anyone associated with terrorism. So waterboarding is deemed "torture" by the President and completely prohibited by law, but, hey, to kill someone, it's purely a matter of his judgement.

What's interesting is that far left commentators like MSNBC's Ed Schultz and ex-Congressman Dennis Kucinich are allied with right-wingers like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity on the issue, and for the same reasons. Some of the far left is supporting the President, of course, but it's far from uniform. The White House position is the powers of Commander in Chief extend to kill lists.

Legal precedent goes back to World War II when the Supreme Court ruled that Americans who receive training from an enemy force have de facto renounced citizenship and may be treated as enemy combatants. In the GITMO litigation, the Court ruled that there must be a procedure for determining whether or not someone is an enemy combatant in order to keep them locked up. Congress subsequently adopted a procedure whereby a military tribunal determines enemy combatant status, with one level of appeal to civilian courts allowed.

It seems to me that a similar procedure should be used to determine if citizens have de facto renounced citizenship and joined terrorists. There would be an exception for battlefield situations when someone is shooting at allied forces.

Regardless of whether or not someone "renounces" citizenship we need to be worrying about the criteria used to kill non-Americans in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Namely, the fact that we can assasinate a Pakistani without knowing who he is, what specifically he is doing, or who is around him as long as a senior CIA official agrees that it matches the behavoiral signature of someone "suspicious."
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 5:22:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 4:08:16 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 2/7/2013 3:30:51 PM, lewis20 wrote:
We value the lives of our soldiers higher than that of any given Afghan, Pakistan, etc. civilian.

As it should be

Yah, those civilians are just mowing our troops down.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 5:27:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Dennis Kucinich is now a Fox News contributor, but he has never supported Obama's drone strike program. I just heard him taking about it yesterday explaining that on Fox News Radio.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 5:30:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And, I should say that a vehemently support the usage of drones, I don't support the way their used. I seriously doubt that 83% poll asked people if they supported civilians being killed. Most semi-rational people are fine with drones. What I'm not fine with is how their being used. Their a great combat tool, not a precise assassination one.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 5:33:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 2:56:32 PM, lewis20 wrote:
When pushed as to the legality of killing Anwar al-Alwaiki's 16 year old son, Robert Gibbs stated that to avoid being killed, he "should have [had] a far more responsible father"

^^^ Unconstitutional

Though one thing is universal in the media, they are just now talking about it, after the election. Despite the fact that the issues in question were raised months, if not years ago.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 5:43:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 5:22:58 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/7/2013 4:08:16 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 2/7/2013 3:30:51 PM, lewis20 wrote:
We value the lives of our soldiers higher than that of any given Afghan, Pakistan, etc. civilian.

As it should be

Yah, those civilians are just mowing our troops down.
I know they are not, but our governments job is to protect american civilians and troops, not the civilians of other countries. We have no duty to civilians of other countries.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 5:44:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 5:33:58 PM, Contra wrote:
At 2/7/2013 2:56:32 PM, lewis20 wrote:
When pushed as to the legality of killing Anwar al-Alwaiki's 16 year old son, Robert Gibbs stated that to avoid being killed, he "should have [had] a far more responsible father"

^^^ Unconstitutional

Though one thing is universal in the media, they are just now talking about it, after the election. Despite the fact that the issues in question were raised months, if not years ago.

Constitution Smonstitution - it's a human rights violation.

European nations refuse to criticize China's human rights record now because of their affiliation with us. We're losing the moral high ground to China for Christ's sake...the same country that killed the majority of the sparrows in their country to do the wishes of a mad man who just so happened to kill 60 million of his own population.

WTF have we become?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 5:45:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 5:44:57 PM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
uh pretty sure u have a duty not to kill innocent people

Not at the cost of our soldiers
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 5:47:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 5:43:48 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 2/7/2013 5:22:58 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/7/2013 4:08:16 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 2/7/2013 3:30:51 PM, lewis20 wrote:
We value the lives of our soldiers higher than that of any given Afghan, Pakistan, etc. civilian.

As it should be

Yah, those civilians are just mowing our troops down.
I know they are not, but our governments job is to protect american civilians and troops, not the civilians of other countries. We have no duty to civilians of other countries.

then why are we assassinating them.

when they give you your M4 in boot, you kinda know what the job entails. not so much for an American citizen who is assassinated and denied their civil rights...

DRONES ARE TERROR WEAPONS. We're not fighting against terrorists. We're becoming them.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 5:48:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 5:43:48 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 2/7/2013 5:22:58 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/7/2013 4:08:16 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 2/7/2013 3:30:51 PM, lewis20 wrote:
We value the lives of our soldiers higher than that of any given Afghan, Pakistan, etc. civilian.

As it should be

Yah, those civilians are just mowing our troops down.
I know they are not, but our governments job is to protect american civilians and troops, not the civilians of other countries. We have no duty to civilians of other countries.

Basic counter-insurgency strategy says otherwise.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 5:48:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 5:45:44 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 2/7/2013 5:44:57 PM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
uh pretty sure u have a duty not to kill innocent people

Not at the cost of our soldiers

WHAT!?!?!?!? Kill an American civilian to save an American soldier? Are you f*cking mad?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 5:49:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 5:48:01 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/7/2013 5:43:48 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 2/7/2013 5:22:58 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/7/2013 4:08:16 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 2/7/2013 3:30:51 PM, lewis20 wrote:
We value the lives of our soldiers higher than that of any given Afghan, Pakistan, etc. civilian.

As it should be

Yah, those civilians are just mowing our troops down.
I know they are not, but our governments job is to protect american civilians and troops, not the civilians of other countries. We have no duty to civilians of other countries.

Basic counter-insurgency strategy says otherwise.

It's not COUNTER-insurgency. it's insurgency. it's wrong and trying to justify it is wrong.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 5:52:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 5:48:18 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/7/2013 5:45:44 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 2/7/2013 5:44:57 PM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
uh pretty sure u have a duty not to kill innocent people

Not at the cost of our soldiers

WHAT!?!?!?!? Kill an American civilian to save an American soldier? Are you f*cking mad?
I was referring to civillians of other countries.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 5:53:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 5:49:24 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/7/2013 5:48:01 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/7/2013 5:43:48 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 2/7/2013 5:22:58 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/7/2013 4:08:16 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 2/7/2013 3:30:51 PM, lewis20 wrote:
We value the lives of our soldiers higher than that of any given Afghan, Pakistan, etc. civilian.

As it should be

Yah, those civilians are just mowing our troops down.
I know they are not, but our governments job is to protect american civilians and troops, not the civilians of other countries. We have no duty to civilians of other countries.

Basic counter-insurgency strategy says otherwise.

It's not COUNTER-insurgency. it's insurgency. it's wrong and trying to justify it is wrong.
Even if it is insurgency, why cant we use our weapons against insurgency directed at us?
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 5:58:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 5:52:18 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 2/7/2013 5:48:18 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/7/2013 5:45:44 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 2/7/2013 5:44:57 PM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
uh pretty sure u have a duty not to kill innocent people

Not at the cost of our soldiers

WHAT!?!?!?!? Kill an American civilian to save an American soldier? Are you f*cking mad?
I was referring to civillians of other countries.

This thread is referring to American Citizens and American Civilians.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 5:59:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 5:53:03 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 2/7/2013 5:49:24 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/7/2013 5:48:01 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/7/2013 5:43:48 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 2/7/2013 5:22:58 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/7/2013 4:08:16 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 2/7/2013 3:30:51 PM, lewis20 wrote:
We value the lives of our soldiers higher than that of any given Afghan, Pakistan, etc. civilian.

As it should be

Yah, those civilians are just mowing our troops down.
I know they are not, but our governments job is to protect american civilians and troops, not the civilians of other countries. We have no duty to civilians of other countries.

Basic counter-insurgency strategy says otherwise.

It's not COUNTER-insurgency. it's insurgency. it's wrong and trying to justify it is wrong.
Even if it is insurgency, why cant we use our weapons against insurgency directed at us?

Using it against an insurgency would be a counterinsurgency. That's not the situation we are faced with any longer, if we ever were.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 6:07:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 5:16:00 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 2/7/2013 3:30:51 PM, lewis20 wrote:
We value the lives of our soldiers higher than that of any given Afghan, Pakistan, etc. civilian.

Whose this "we?"

I'm failing to see a we in here. Just say, "Obama" or "the government." Not much of a "we."

In reference to whoever posted the survey that said majority of Americans support our use of drones.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler