Book of the Month

Hits of the Day

The Lethal Presidency of Barack Obama

by dijamo 7/9/2012 - 2:46 pm

Sure, we as a nation have always killed people. A lot of people. But no president has ever waged war by killing enemies one by one, targeting them individually for execution, wherever they are. The Obama administration has taken pains to tell us, over and over again, that they are careful, scrupulous of our laws, and determined to avoid the loss of collateral, innocent lives. They're careful because when it comes to waging war on individuals, the distinction between war and murder becomes a fine one. Especially when, on occasion, the individuals we target are Americans and when, in one instance, the collateral damage was an American boy.

By Tom Junod

Read the full article at http://www.esquire.com/features/obama-lethal-presidency-0812

Add new comment
1019 reads

If anyone is interested, they'll be blogging all week at the Esquire Politics Blog about this article starting with Obama's Trayvon Martin, Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki. Today's question for comments:

The President asks us to trust him to us his lethal powers responsibly, even when for the most part we have no idea who we are killing or why. We have been asked to put our faith in the President, in the administration, and in the “robust oversight” of Congress. But last fall, the administration killed a sixteen-year-old American boy, without being held accountable. Was that a failure of the system or was that how the system is supposed to work?

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/abdulrahman-al-awlaki-death-10470891#ixzz209Yi36kg

by dijamo 7/9/2012 - 2:58 pm

Be careful.

There may come a time, when dissent, might be viewed as aiding and abetting the enemy.

by Resistance 7/9/2012 - 5:22 pm

The basic premise that this is somehow a fundamental change in how presidents conduct foreign policy is flawed. Attack drones has changed the way administrations go about their business, but not the nature of the outcomes. Just look up Operation Condor. One might argue that the US is now less likely to prop up a brutal dictator because now they have the capability to take out those who are believed to a threat to US interests. Whether that threat is legitimate or the interests justify the actions is another issue. But black ops etc have always been a part of the modern presidency from the perspective of the president as commander in chief. Drones now just bring it out into the light a little more, even though the process is still shrouded in secrecy.

by Another Trope 7/10/2012 - 11:38 am

Oh right, hidden cooperation where other countries killed their own citizens is the same as an overtly claimed right by the President to assassinate even American citizens abroad extra-judiciously if deemed supporters of terror.

Just like jimmying the window and stealing your jewelry is the same as a legal right to have a key to your door and remove contents when I desire - the outcome's the same!

And when the English lords claimed First Night in Scotland, what's the difference? Someone's willy was going to do the enterin', and in the dark, who's to know anyhow?

The entirely fungible universe.

by PeraclesPlease 7/10/2012 - 1:11 pm (re: Another Trope)

There is a target. To me it the same if the president provides training & support to the foreign government military so they can pull their jeep up to the house at night and make the person disappear (ie kill them) or the president orders someone in our military to fly a drone over the same house and drops a bomb that kills them. I wouldn't say that the former one has any less blood on his or her hands then the latter one when that training & support is provided in order to achieve that outcome. (the problem with the dictator is that they start going after even those you wouldn't have targeted)

Actually, the first analogy you use is a good one. Yes both are stealing your jewelry. The Obama administration has stepped out and said, yeah we're doing it and we have the legal right to do so, as opposed to those who say, what us? no we don't know anything about the guy who snuck in and stole your jewelry.

So we can have the debate about whether they have the legal right to do it. But to sit there and claim that prior presidents weren't stealing your jewelry by hiring some second party to do the dirty work is just plain ignorance of US foreign policy 101.

by Another Trope 7/10/2012 - 1:35 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

The US government was complicit with torture before GWB, so I don't know what all those liberals and Candidate Barack Obama were complaining about. *shrug* No biggie, it is who we are.

by dijamo 7/10/2012 - 1:41 pm (re: Another Trope)

The point here is it would be the same as beginning a discussion on torture under GWB with the idea that GWB went to where no other US president has gone and has become complicit with the use of torture. It is not about this is not being a big issue or that it shouldn't be discussed. It changes the frame of discussion if one sets up the framing of the issue as if Obama is the first president to use targeted killings as means to deal with a threat on foreign soil. Really, the only difference is that Obama is willing to acknowledge the blood on his hands. Whether he should have that blood there needs to be debated. But once again, no modern president didn't have in fact similar blood (regardless of plausible deniability).

by Another Trope 7/10/2012 - 1:52 pm (re: dijamo)

Obama's not the first President to declare the right to target American citizens for assassinations, further more than there is no judicial review for those targeted for assassination once his edict has been handed down from on high? Can you name another?

I'm sure you'd be shrugging all the same if this was GWB declaring this power rather than Obama.

by dijamo 7/10/2012 - 2:10 pm (re: Another Trope)

The declaration of the legality is another thing. Look at the quote below:

But no president has ever waged war by killing enemies one by one, targeting them individually for execution, wherever they are.

Where does the issue of declaring it legal come up. I don't see it. Other presidents have waged war by killing enemies one by one, just they used Black Op or surrogates to get the job done. In the past many of the targeted assassinations were done so the president had plausible deniability, and even less chance anyone other than those who conducted the operation of ever knowing it occurred.

I just took a break and during that time I wondered how long before the "if GWB had done it" would be brought up. Not long I guess. And to answer your question, and maybe to help you as try to persuade those not in your choir - I wouldn't be reacting much different at all.

You see, I am one of those people who believe there is an actual threat out there and that there has to be steps taken to deal with it. I was like a number of liberals I know who supported the original intent of the invasion of Afghanistan to get Osama. We were against the invasion of Iraq because it was not going to help in dealing with the threat. We were upset that Bush and company were using the actual threat to stoke unnecessary fears for political ends.

But in the end, I believe there is a need for Black Ops and other military interventions (like when I agreed with Clinton when he sent those missiles into Afghanistan after Osama, and others were just saying that he did it to take attention off of the scandal).

Not all Black Ops are created equal, and some cross over the line and those involved need to be punished for crimes. But this does not mean that I believe we should only engage in operations that are fully exposed to the light of day, so to say. In fact, the use of drones as opposed to the Black Op offers for more transparency in this regard. In both cases we are not privy to the intel that leads to the decision, but in the case of the drones, it is pretty obvious we were the ones that made the person "disappear."

So back to GWB. I don't kid myself that presidents, and all of the agencies and departments that operate overseas under the executive authority, don't from time to time have to make decisions that go along that blurry line of morality. At best, we civilians get to see the pattern - and if that pattern indicates an abuse of the power than it would mean special means to investigate would need to be sought. But if GWB was using drones to go after the threat, and there was no indication that there was another agenda that would not justify those attacks, then I would be having the same response as I have with Obama.

Of course, once something like the Valeria Plame scandal broke, then I would question their ability to review and assess the intel they were receiving regarding when to use and not use the drones.

by Another Trope 7/10/2012 - 2:50 pm (re: dijamo)

I am talking about (and the article is talking about) presidential targeting of American citizens for death, with no judicial review and complete impunity. You conveniently choose to ignore that qualifier because it's harder to say this is just standard practice for previous US presidents only we never knew about it.

But good to know that you are consistent in defending GWB's imperial presidency as relates to the War on Terror and Obama's expansion of that war even further, and you will continue to do that same no matter who is president.

by dijamo 7/10/2012 - 3:12 pm (re: Another Trope)

There are a lot of deal with, and so I took just the very thing that comes to mind. Just the title - The Lethal Presidency of Barack Obama - reiterates this meme that somehow Obama is more lethal than past presidents.

But let me put it this way: if the president is targeting American citizens (16 yr old, 24 yr old, 50 yr old) on US soil, I have a problem with it. If it is Yemen, and they are operating on intel that would justify it, I don't.

Because the Bush administration distorted the war on terror, doesn't mean there is a lack of a threat out there that has to be dealt with. So in other words, actions taken to deal with that threat are not inherently wrong nor are they necessarily driven by some imperial desire.

If one see it through this prism, the lack of judicial review is, just as with operations in military actions during conventional warfare, is not a problem as some see it. And I would argue that complete impunity would disappear if evidence emerged killings were taken against people who were known to be innocent. Of course, the nature of the secrecy that surrounds such operations makes such information difficult to emerge (but not impossible).

So back to facet of the question being posed - do I trust them? Yeah. Because I believe that the majority of people of who walk the halls of power, for all their faults and bad priorities are not psychopaths, sadists, and murderers. Whether it is Obama or some mid-level person at the Pentagon, most are trying to do the right thing for the right reason unless evidence emerges to say otherwise.

In the same way, I believe SWAT teams should have the power to take out a subject if they meet a certain requirements, without judicial review. There may be some SWAT sniper who actually enjoys pulling the trigger, but I believe the vast majority do not, and only do so because they believe it is only option in order to protect innocent lives. If take the judicial review thing to its logical extreme, then you would have to eliminate this kind of action taken against American citizens as well.

by Another Trope 7/10/2012 - 3:45 pm (re: dijamo)

Is there anything you won't give up, Trope? Ultimately, for you, it can all be eroded away, the Constitution, rights, democratic processes -- just so long as you trust" the people in power.

It's a totally new system of governance now, the Trusted By Trope system. Sadly, it has absolutely no points in common with the democracies of the West as developed in recent centuries, but there you go - those systems were probably past their prime anyway.

TROPE'S RULES!

It's nice the way the fact that you trust them apparently means they can just... kill people... if they feel those people are threatening.

I rather hope you extend similar license to your local law enforcement officials (oh wait! you do! SWAT teams!) Maybe we should extend it to sheriffs, school principals (High School only), pharmacists, lawyers as well as wrestling coaches, pesticide salesmen, and your ex-lovers. All should be enabled to kill on sight.

It's heckuva system. Step #1 - They define the threat. Atep #2 - You decide whether they're trustworthy. Step #3 - They kill people.

For example, Richard Nixon and his bully boys - you trusted that they are not sadists, psychopaths or murderers. GW Bush, same. The people who ordered wave after wave of torture, who trained up the death squads, who committed My Lai - they're all fine with you. You trust them.

And if some of them were actually the very very bad people you define as being sadists or psychopaths or murderers, how will we ferret that out? In your fine system?

Why.... we'll wait to see if your feelings of trust ebb away.

Let's wrap this up. There is enormous, and almost unending, historic evidence that power attracts individuals who are happy to use it to oppress, defraud, inflict pain and kill their opponents.

You, however, have decided to trust them, and require no further checks, no balances, no laws, no reviews.

Conclusion? Your views have nothing in common with the intentions behind the creation of the Government of the original United States.

Welcome to the United Tropean States. Wear a helmet.

by Qnonymous (not verified) 7/10/2012 - 4:52 pm (re: Another Trope)

There are checks and balances in the system (just not judicial ones), there are reviews and laws, etc. As the article points out, there is a long chain of individuals before it comes to the desk of Obama. But in order to rant you have to make the assertion I don't believe there should be any at all (because there is in case you didn't know, other ways to check and balance and temper without using the courts). Do I trust any one person? no. Do I trust that if enough people are in the system, it will be restrained? - yes.

Like you bring up Mai Lai - so do I trust most soldiers are going operate appropriately yes. Do some cross the line? yes. Should those that do be appropriately dealt with? yes.

But in Q's world we give up on the snipers, let those who take hostages and threaten to kill them have whatever they want.

In the end, the question is posed - The President asks us to trust him to us his lethal powers responsibly, even when for the most part we have no idea who we are killing or why. We have been asked to put our faith in the President, in the administration, and in the “robust oversight” of Congress. But last fall, the administration killed a sixteen-year-old American boy, without being held accountable. Was that a failure of the system or was that how the system is supposed to work?

So I was giving in part my personal response to that. I can't answer for anybody else.

But as usual, if I state my opinion I am somehow being some arrogant asshat, whereas those who express their opinion with which you agree -then they are engaging in a debate.

Where is your DIJAMO RULES rant. Oh wait you agree with her, so it is okay for her to give her opinion.

I would give a little more but I have an appointment to go to.

by Another Trope 7/10/2012 - 5:44 pm (re: Qnonymous)

Where are your checks and balances? You. Have. None. Only the Administration knows. The only way the public knows is if something leaks. i.e. If it follow an unusual/illegal channel out to the world. And who is targeting whistle-blowers and leakers more than any predecessor? Yeah, guess who - your most trusted man.

Also, I'm asking for some sort of system of oversight. This equals, in the mind of Trope, giving the terrorists whatever they want. Do you realize your position is far to the Right of the Republicans? I mean, you could have a King, and as long as you had some magical-mystical system which created a feeling of "trust" in you, then it'd all be good.

Yeah, that's arrogant. You have a good feeling about it all though, so don't let me harsh your vibe.

by Anonymous (not verified) 7/10/2012 - 7:07 pm (re: Another Trope)

by Anonymous (not verified) 7/10/2012 - 7:09 pm (re: Anonymous)

You never harsh my vibe in the long run, which is probably what gets in your craw the most. Your powers of persuasive witticisms are weak and your frustration leads you to believe the notion of checks and balances exist only if one can see them.

In order for government to function in certain areas - like dealing with drug cartels and terrorist networks - there does have to be some trust that the internal checks and balances are functioning within various departments, agencies, and administrations.

Now you and those of your ilk may believe that the DEA, ATF and other agencies should first reveal their operations like Fast and Furious to the people first, before implementing them, thus allowing our checks and balances to work. But there are those who believe that we need to trust the internal checks and balances to ensure that only effective and efficient operations occur. When something goes wrong like with Fast and Furious then we investigate, we attempt to correct the problems that emerged.

And just because some police officers might abuse their right to make the decision to use lethal force in certain situations, we don't take away all police officers right to do so. We find out what went wrong and implement measures as best as we can to ensure it doesn't happen again or less likely to happen again.

It is unfortunate but necessary that the mistakes, and mistakes that are lethal sometimes, have to occur first, before society can step into act first.

This isn't some magical-mystical system, but the very nature of how governments works in the adult world. It isn't arrogant, but merely a conclusion derived from a realistic understanding of society and governments.

I'm afraid to say that it is you who lives in your little land of la-la-ness where government can be 100% transparent at all times and deal effectively with the domestic and foreign threats, where no police officer has to ever pick up a weapon, where there are really no bad guys out there except for the mean old men walking the corridors of power.

by Another Trope 7/11/2012 - 9:36 am (re: Anonymous)

You're a Republican. Just go change your ticket and get it over with Trope. You have no arguments, at all, other than faith and trust. Anyone who suggests anything else, you accuse of being soft on terrorism, and wanting to have the public look at everything, all the time. Haven't you even a clue of how perfectly you now toe the Republican line? W Bush would be your kind of guy.

Hey, you even have the whole grown up/adult meme working for you now. Good for you. Can't wait til the golf-talk starts.

by Qnonymous (not verified) 7/11/2012 - 10:09 am (re: Another Trope)

Really that's all you got? "You're a Republican." Ouch. Of course, I have already gone on record as saying I am a law and order liberal, I'm sticking to it. Sorry. The Democrats are still my people. And the thing is, I am not alone. There are others like me. And calling me or them Republicans isn't going to change anything. In fact, it just inspires me to be more involved.

There is a saying that golf is a good walk spoiled. If I think about it a little more, I can turn that into a blog on foreign policy for adults who want to see the world as it is and not how they wished it would be.

by Another Trope 7/11/2012 - 10:29 am (re: Qnonymous)

I was watching Liz Cheney on YouTube the other day - I don't see any light between positions. There's always a Ticking-Time-Bomb somewhere, and divulging our "enhanced" tactics only helps the enemy and weakens our defense.

Maybe Trope likes the music at the Democratic Convention better - but then again, with D-'s like Obama, he doesn't have to choose, does he. Speak softly, carry a big (top secret, unverified but occasionally bragged about) stick. The Daddy State rules.

by PeraclesPlease 7/11/2012 - 10:59 am (re: Qnonymous)

The Logic of Q:

Someone abuses the notion of taking the necessary actions to deal with a threat (eg soft on terrorism, soft on crime, etc), so in the future no one can claim that a policy of action or inaction is not taking the necessary actions to deal with the threat, or if they do, they can be equated with the ideological and policy positions of anyone who used said notion to defend a particular course of action.

In Q's world, if someone says we shouldn't reduce the police force by half in order to save money, or releasing murderers because we don't have the space in our prisons is a bad idea, they agree with Liz Cheney.

by Another Trope 7/11/2012 - 11:15 am (re: PeraclesPlease)

As if we said don't take necessary actions.

You just assume the extra-legal actions are warranted. And that checks & balances are in place. Even though it's all hidden behind a "trust-us" security wall - no details, not even military tribunes anymore - just made up seat-of-the-pants "justice".

You actually haven't even said what the threat is - "soft on terror" isn't a result. They'll blow up Manhattan from Yemen or Pakistan?

Someone who says he trusts the President to carry out these secret powers and because terrorists are so bad he doesn't even want to know these terrible things they have to do behind closed doors - yep, that's agreeing with Liz Cheney. Though she'd still call you soft on terror, because that's who she is.

by PeraclesPlease 7/11/2012 - 12:19 pm (re: Another Trope)

(see below)

by Another Trope 7/11/2012 - 1:21 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

I would add your second analogy is just plain stupid. It is in your universe that all is fungible, where every analogy offers insight into the subject matter (not to mention a place where the mention of a willy is the mark of a great witticism.)

by Another Trope 7/10/2012 - 1:44 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

"A system with judicial review = a system where Obama reviews himself."

No further comment.

by PeraclesPlease 7/10/2012 - 11:43 pm (re: Another Trope)

Authorizing the murder of Osama bin Laden was second only to Obamacare in the crimes of this administration.

What we need is a new war, on Iran, a unilateral war. I plan to vote Republican to ensure that happens, no more targeted killing, a return to mass bombing and occupation, killing GOP style by the hundreds and tens of thousands, taking down a whole nation and lots and lots of troop deployments, over and over, and let's bring back the Bush torture regime and the talk about drones of death. No more UN permission slips, no more abandonment of what John McCain called in 2009 'interesting men' like Colonel Quadaffi.

by NCD 7/10/2012 - 3:03 pm

Funny, this article wasn't about Osama Bin Laden. It was about a 16 year old American kid. Reading is fundamental.

by dijamo 7/10/2012 - 3:20 pm (re: NCD)

Brains are fundamental. You can kill more kids with invasions then you can with targeted killing, which is why I support Republicans and NO permission slips from the UN or France.

by NCD 7/10/2012 - 4:51 pm (re: dijamo)

*American* kids. We'd likely have to invade ourself.

But glad the peacenick wing of the party has died - such a bunch of whiners.

by PeraclesPlease 7/10/2012 - 11:46 pm (re: NCD)

plan to vote Republican to ensure that happens, no more targeted killing, a return to mass bombing and occupation, killing GOP style by the hundreds and tens of thousands, taking down a whole nation and lots and lots of troop deployments, over and over,

Hey, it's jobs! (And not just soldiering but at Northrup Grumman et. al., too!) Plus you get the bonus of being able to chant: USA #1! (But that Iran, that's pretty small pickings, we gotta put those Chinese in their place.)

by artappraiser 7/10/2012 - 3:55 pm (re: NCD)

It would seem the first question to ask is:

Does you believe the US have the right to use a drone to attack a high-value target, even if there are four or five others whose level of threat is unknown and could be innocent civilians?

Then, if the person answers yes:

If one of those four or five others is a US citizen, does that change your answer from a yes to no?

If the answer to that is no, then (since you keep bringing up his age) the question:

If that US citizen was 16 years old, rather than say 24 or 50 years old, would that change your answer from a yes to a no?

A follow up question would be:

Is there a difference between unknowingly killing a US citizen in a drone attack on a high-value target and knowingly killing a US citizen who happens to be next to the high-value target?

Then the question:

If the high-value target is known to be a US citizen is a drone attack justifiable?

by Another Trope 7/10/2012 - 4:22 pm

It would seem the first question is does the President have the right to reserve for himself the authority to target anyone he declares as a "high value target" overseas for assassination with complete secrecy, no overview and no judicial oversight. If the answer is no, the rest of your obsequious musings are irrelevant.

by dijamo 7/10/2012 - 4:52 pm (re: Another Trope)

According to a recent poll, even among self-described Democrats and liberals, the majority approve of US citizens being targeted by drone attacks in foreign lands - and not just in general. I would seriously doubt many of these people would alter their response if one said that the targets of the attacks did not receive judicial review.

So when someone points out that a 16 year old US citizen was killed in Yemen during a drone attack, most Americans are going to respond "and?"

Of course, just because the majority of the American People approve of something does not make it right. But it seems those who want to paint the current president as a some rogue killing machine are in the minority. Which kind of goes back to my original post and whether your intent is persuade those who see the drone attacks as justifiable that they are wrong. Then such musing as whether it is okay if there possible civilians becomes very relevant as part of the larger debate.

by Another Trope 7/10/2012 - 5:26 pm (re: dijamo)

I'm sure there were Americans who approved of torture of "high value target" suspected terrorists as well, but they were overwhelmingly GOP. You would think since death is a bit more final than torture, those democrats who had moral qualms about torture would be similarly concerned about targeted assassinations of US citizens. But no, there are democrats like you who are entirely partisan in their moral outrage. If Obama does it, it is right even though they'd be screaming about the death of the Constitution if it was bush or Cheney or plain or Romney who did it instead. Another gift of Obama to the democratic party: we appear to be a bunch of partisan hypocrites who approve of the unchecked presidential war on terror when he's a dem but not if he's GOP. Or actually you appear to be a partisan hypocrite. For me it's wrong no matter what party is expecting the executions.

by Anonymous dijamo (not verified) 7/10/2012 - 6:20 pm (re: Another Trope)

If Obama does it, it is right even though they'd be screaming about the death of the Constitution if it was bush or Cheney or plain or Romney who did it instead.

This is the little lie you keep telling yourself in order to avoid having to actually attempt to make a persuasive argument. I guess in your mind, you have to believe that all Democrats were against the original invasion of Afghanistan, something they would have only approved if Obama was in the White House.

The use of drones is one particular strategy. In this particular case, the system in place has approval in general. Just as the majority of Americans approved the maintenance of Gitmo under Bush, and continue to support it maintenance today, I would speculate the use of drone attacks by Bush would have had similar support - minus those were transferring their feeling about being lied into an invasion of Iraq.

When Clinton sent in the cruise missiles (without judicial review as far as I know) to Afghanistan and Sudan in retaliation (not to deal with an imminent threat), the debate was about whether he did it to divert attention from his scandal. Not whether he had taken unchecked presidential powers to order the murder of innocent civilians on his whim.

The bungling of the Bush administration and fiasco that was Iraq may have made it appear that people were in general less conservative on matters of foreign policy, presidential powers, and law and order issues in general. But the fact is that in these matters, they do tend to lean conservative, even in otherwise liberal on social issues.

So in short, if Romney does win as you hope he does, and calls in a drone strike or two, you won't hear me or number of other Democrats/liberals screaming bloody murder. If in the case of Obama or Romney, a pattern emerges from the attacks (they're kind of hard to hide) that indicate there is an abuse or hidden agenda in the attacks, then an investigation can be called for.

by Another Trope 7/11/2012 - 9:03 am (re: Anonymous dijamo)

Our biggest abuse of drone strikes is in Somalia where we have almost no feedback whatsoever. Drone strikes in Afghanistan are a bit better controlled since we have troops there who can be stung by protests & retaliation, as well as reporters who can tell a bit what's going on.

But in general, people don't want to know what's going on, and it's always been a minority that's complained. Feel better? Superior? Damn minority whiners, won't they just shut up?

And you can be sure that when D- in White House changes to R-, there will be louder complaints from Democrats, just as GOP complaints & sensitivity to right-vs-wrong increased Jan 21, 2009. Not all, but certainly a significant pendulum swing.

by PeraclesPlease 7/11/2012 - 9:22 am (re: Another Trope)

My style is not about telling people to stop whining and shut up. It is to say something different that might be persuasive.

I don't agree with this or that, and I say why I don't. I say this is how I view the role of the president, citizen, etc.

I don't support my argument by saying the "majority of Americans support me." In terms of politics and campaign strategies, these poll numbers can be useful, but not as a basis of whether it is fundamentally right or wrong.

I would never say that there are not people whose ideological/party leanings don't influence how they feel about policies and such. In fact I would say in the whole mess that makes up political system we all do to one degree or another. In part because there is usually no politician that will be perfect, just like a significant other, and so for those we feel most aligned with, we let something slide that for the one that makes our skin crawl we would give hell and fury over.

Moreover, I would never argue we are an informed nation, drone attacks or otherwise. In fact as I mentioned on Wolfum's recent blog, our problem is that not only are we uninformed on the issues, but have never had so much misinformation.

All of which leads to one big mess. As it is, and so we go.

by Another Trope 7/11/2012 - 9:49 am (re: PeraclesPlease)

The lie you keep telling yourself is that Democrats supporting going to war in Afghanistan is equivalent to Democrats supporting this President's decision to declare the President has the right to target American citizens for assassination supported of course by the same bullshit bobbing head doll OLC memos that GWB used to justify torture. Bill Clinton never advocated targeted assassinations of American citizens. Not even George W Bush did. He captured American Taliban and indefinitely detained them, he didn't just issue death decrees like the Nobel peace prize winning Obama. All the caterwauling about Obama coming to restore the Constitution after GWB's imperial presidency is *poof* instantly forgotten and now you support Obama's escalation of GWB's path of a president who resists any oversight of his newfound powers that are so secret he can't even release a memo with the legal foundations. Obama released Bush's BS torture memos once he got into office. Can't wait until Romney does the same to Obama and see what that does to the legacy of our Nobel Peace Prize winning judge-jury-executioner President Obama.

PS You wonder why I kept mentioning the age of the kid who was killed. I don't know, the Supreme Court ruled mandatory life sentences for juveniles convicted of murder in a court of law is unconstitutional. One would think immediate death sentences for a youth not tried for anything, with no opportunity to confront any evidence based on the authorization of just the President might raise some moral qualms in decent people. Not you though, unsurprisingly. The fact Obama authorized it makes it A-ok for you and how dare anyone question otherwise. You might want to note that this government you trust so wholeheartedly to be fair and use their power judiciously, lied and said he was 21 years old even though he was born in the US. You would think our intelligence would at least be able to figure out his age based on his public records/US passport/birth certificate. If they can't get such basic facts right, how can you trust the integrity of the "evidence" used to sentence these folks to death by drone?

by Anonymous dijamo (not verified) 7/11/2012 - 9:40 am (re: Another Trope)

I never used the word equivalent - but I suppose to make your case you had to throw that in there. You were making this whole if GWB did it, and I offered an example of the use excessive military force to invade another country to show that some Democrats do believe that there is a time to use the military. In that sense, they are comparable.

The debate of whether the targeted assassinations of US citizens in this particular conflict under these circumstances is justifiable. If you can stop for a moment believing it is just because people adore Obama, or that they are dupes of talking points, but rather have pondered the nature of the conflict, the nature of the threat, and the means to deal with it, within the context of war and the Constitution, and have come to the conclusion that it is - to put it simply - OK, then maybe there can be a debate.

Moreover, as your blog quote states - the kid was collateral damage. Therefore he was not given any kind of legal sentence, nothing to have him confront. From what your article says, he happened to be next to a high value target. This is tragic. I don't mean to brush off his death as if it means nothing. But we go back to the pondering of the conflict, etc.

what kind of just really pisses me off is when I state an opposing point of view on something, and then I get this crap

The fact Obama authorized it makes it A-ok for you and how dare anyone question otherwise.

Please freaking point out to me where I tell you or anybody to shut up - where do I say "how dare you question Obama." I don't but this is the constant refrain. So until I do say it I would ask, since you about getting the truth right, refrain in the future from saying I do.

Moreover, there is the implication that what leads me to my conclusion is simply that Obama came up with it. This is as true as me saying the reason you're against it is solely because Obama came up with it.

What I do believe that anger towards Obama does lead you to slant things to reinforce your point. But hey we all do this more or less - i'm no saint -, so many of the times unconsciously, and part of the blogosphere is to point these out.

and finally I would never say they always get it right when it comes to the evidence. I do believe they try to get it right, as compared to the days when Cheney was pushing for evidence to back a conclusion, rather than letting the conclusion be derived from the evidence. It is in this little facet of the system where the trust is needed most. If evidence emerges that the Obama administration is pushing the intelligence agency in the same manner as the Bush administration, then you'll hear me complain about it.

In the end, what you seem not to grasp is that, even though the Bush administration distorted it, I believe there is a war on terrorists, an asymmetrical war, one that is messy with a lot of grey areas. And if we want an end to the death sentences, then the terrorists need to put down their weapons and go home.

by Another Trope 7/11/2012 - 10:15 am (re: Anonymous dijamo)

The quote questions whether the kid collateral damage or was he targeted? You don't know because the US government won't say, and you are perfectly okay with that. The US government reached out to the family of Samir Khan to offer their condolences and acknowledge he was not a target, only collateral damage. They have not done the same for Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki. You would think they would express condolences to the family of aa 16 year old kid who was collateral damage IF he was collateral damage. You would think if he was collateral damage they would have no need to lie about his age. But of course, you know and trust he was not a target because you looked into the soul of ~~Obama and~~ the US government and you trust their integrity and honor and the wonders of a checks and balances system entirely within the executive branch with no option for appeal of review. L. O. L. You would have supported this same system had it been originated by GWB or Cheney or Palin or Lieberman. My apologies for doubting the sincerity of your by any means necessary fuck the Constitution war-hawkishness.

So no worries there, you can take comfort in that any evidence of fuck-ups or civilians killed will be whitewashed away by saying anyone killed by a drone is a TERRORIST but it's classified and we can't share any info with you or in the case of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki the US government not officially commenting at all. You'll never hear about the Obama admin pushing the intelligence agencies because he'll prosecute the shit out of anyone who leaks information unflattering to his administration. Hell of a system of oversight and checks and balances you got there. Glad it helps you sleep well at night.

by Anonymous dijamo (not verified) 7/11/2012 - 10:36 am (re: Another Trope)

Just to be clear, your quote above was

when, in one instance, the collateral damage was an American boy.

it is assumed from the way it structured, that the targeted US citizen was refering to his father. So I am going on the information you were providing us.

Because we don't know if he was actually the target. Just as we don't know what intel they had on him, and whether he was as innocent as one might assume.

Now it would seem that you are equating the affirmation of the use of attack drones to an affirmation of by any means necessary fuck the Constitution war-hawkishness. I don't so, there we will have to agree to disagree.

And given the breadth of the personnel within the intelligence community, and the nature of much information what comings and goings and briefing not being truly classified information, and those who really want to get some information out, find a way to create at least a rumor, I doubt a total fuckup on this front would be kept a secret for very long. But that's just me.

This isn't the ideal system, not by a long shot, but what seems to be lacking is any alternative to it at this time. And this is the problem. In all the gnashing of teeth over the attack drones, very little is offered in way of how we can address the problem that doesn't amount to just sitting back and waiting.

by Another Trope 7/11/2012 - 11:02 am (re: Anonymous dijamo)

" I doubt a total fuckup on this front would be kept a secret for very long. But that's just me. "

Yes, that's just you. It took 40 years for Korean atrocities to come out. Mai Lai was hushed for a few years, but the Tiger Group was kept quiet for 30 before exposed by the Toledo paper. Events from 2003 torture rooms are finally coming out, but only a little bit, seeing as gov officials can deliberately erase boxes and boxes of torture recordings and not face any repercussions, while the government ever-expanding need for secrecy rarely is overridden by the compliant judiciary.

(in related news, requests to cell phone companies for release of call records including locations of both ends has ballooned. no need for warrants anymore - just ask and you'll receive. but this news is coming out fairly quickly)

by PeraclesPlease 7/11/2012 - 11:24 am (re: Another Trope)

And Valeria Plame came out in time for Scooter to get sentenced while Cheney was there to see it.

by Another Trope 7/11/2012 - 1:25 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

To target, attack and kill a US citizen without indictment or conviction or military review in time of war or confirmed military target or conviction of treason is indeed outside the Constitution and protection of life, liberty & pursuit of happiness and other guaranteed rights of habeas corpus, trial of peers, free speech, and a number of other Constitutional guarantees.

If you can justify any of this via the Constitution, we can agree to disagree. Otherwise you're pulling it out of your derriere with no basis for disagreement.

(and no, that's not just the generic use of attack drones)

An alternative is "wait", for example. How do these people threaten us? Over the last few weeks, over 80 Al Qaeda Arabian Peninsula inmates "escaped" as the Yemeni government worked behind the scenes to cover its ass/prop itself up. Let them deal with it. Track people leaving Yemen, but otherwise, ignore it. There are lots of dangerous people around the world who pose no danger to us if we leave them where they are.

by PeraclesPlease 7/11/2012 - 11:43 am (re: Another Trope)

There would be some who argue that while the president cannot declare war, it does not forbid him from making war - in other repel a sudden attack. In conventional warfare between states, this would generally be considered a situation of imminent attack. The nature of the terrorist networks which operate outside the normal sovereign country framework has altered the scenario. If one argues that we have been attacked, and therefore it is not the president declaring war, but making war against those who are attacking - but since there is no country there to attack, one has to go after the only infrastructure there is - the actual members of the network. And yes it is like whack a mole when one doesn't know how long before a resurfacing will be. If a US citizen happens to be in Berlin when we dropped bombs on it during WWII, even if they weren't in any way helping the German cause, no one would say they were denied their constitutional rights. So if a US citizen happens to be next to one piece of the infrastructure (ie high-value target) then it is as if they were just walking down the street in Berlin minding his or her own business.

by Another Trope 7/11/2012 - 1:59 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

The excuse given was Awlaki was a "military-age male", until relatives showed his birth certificate aging him at 16. Please explain how that's a "high-value target".

How is AQAP operating "outside the normal sovereigh country framework" - we've had civil wars all over the world, this is entirely normal and frequent.

But is it too much to ask to declare war if we're going to wage war? In WWII, we kinda had a war on that let people know Berlin was dangerous. Was a travel advisory sufficient for Awlaki to know we were pointing a drone missile at him? Was he wearing a hoodie, or hanging around the wrong dark-skinned crowd?

by PeraclesPlease 7/11/2012 - 7:38 pm (re: Another Trope)

they didn't say he was the high-value target. but it is possible for a 16 to be a high-value target. according to Obama administration the AUMF was in essence the green light. I would state that the Berlin analogy is limited, as all analogies are, it points out not the issue of the awareness of the victim of the level of danger (although he may have been aware he was in the presence of someone like his father likely to be a target). The analogy points out that if one agrees that the target is valid - be it Berlin or terrorist operative - than accidental (as far as we know now) deaths of US citizens is not to be considered the fault of those who carried out the attack of the target.

by Another Trope 7/12/2012 - 12:49 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

From the Time article linked by AA

A U.S. official said the young man "was in the wrong place at the wrong time," and that the U.S. was trying to kill a legitimate terrorist — al-Qaeda leader Ibrahim al-Banna, who also died — in the strike that apparently killed the American teenager.

by Another Trope 7/12/2012 - 1:04 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

Nope, apparently rumors of Ibrahim al-Banna's death were greatly exaggerated.

On Sept. 30, CIA-directed hellfire missiles blasted a target in northern Yemen, killing his father and ending the two-year manhunt for the cleric whose preaching encouraged plots in the United States, United Kingdom and Canada.

Anwar al Awlaki was born in the United States, having grown up in the West after his father, Nasser, moved his family there to study.

Few mourned Awlaki’s death, but there was concern about the precedent. How could U.S. President Barack Obama order an American killed without any review?

There has been considerably less talk about what happened two weeks later.

On Oct. 14, U.S. drones pounded targets again, this time hundreds of kilometres away in the southeastern region of Azzan.

Abdulrahman, also born in the U.S., and his 17-year-old cousin were among the seven killed. They were apparently having a barbecue.

At first, media outlets reported that Abdulrahman was five years older than his actual age, had been militant like his father and, that a high-value Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) target was also among the dead.

But his grandfather, Nasser al Awlaki, a Fulbright scholar, former agricultural minister and prominent figure in Yemen, said Abdulrahman had nothing to do with his father since he had gone into hiding in 2009.

Nasser al Awlaki has never apologized for his son’s radical views, but said he had also worked hard to insulate his grandchildren from the controversy. He attempted, he said, to give them a “normal life.”

Furious at the inaccurate reporting, he released his grandson’s birth certificate. It reads: “Abdulrahman Anwar al-Aulaqi (another English spelling of the last name). Born: Denver, Colorado. Sept. 13, 1995.”

It later emerged, but was not widely reported, that the strike did not kill its purported target, AQAP’s media chief, Egyptian Ibrahim al Bana.

The U.S. administration has refused comment.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1161432--drone-death-in-yemen-of-an-american-teenager.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/foreign-affairs-defense/al-qaeda-in-yemen/understanding-yemens-al-qaeda-threat/

Samir Khan's family was contacted by the State Department to acknowledge that he was not a target and was collateral damage. The US State department will not officially comment re: Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki despite his grandfather's request for answers. Given that the government has lied about his age, said he was a military age, lied about who else was killed, refused to publicly acknowledge who the target is, I don't put much stock in unnamed unofficial denials that he was a target to Time magazine. If we trumpet every successful strike high-fiving about Al Awlaki and real high level targets, don't we deserve the same public accounting for the strikes where things go wrong, intentionally or otherwise? No Obama admin officials want to take the front page of the NYT with unauthorized leaks bragging about this attack I guess.

by dijamo 7/12/2012 - 2:28 pm (re: Another Trope)

The only source I could find claiming that Ibrahim was still alive was AQAP, which i put as much faith in as you do the US government. Due you have a more credible one?

by Another Trope 7/12/2012 - 2:44 pm (re: dijamo)

I didn't hear AQAP denying Al-Awlaki was killed or bin Laden, so I don't know why they would claim this guy wasn't dead.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/31/us-yemen-qaeda-idUSTRE79U3JL20111031

I would do more research, but I already get selected for very special screening every single time I fly by virtue of my name and the helicopter overhead this morning as we drove in to work kind of weirded me out given my recent internet search history :)

If al-Awlaki was not the target, the US government should come out and declare that the same as they did with Samir Khan. They should also for the record declare who the target was. If we can go publicly bragging about the "successful" kills, we should be publicly accountable for the upfucks as well.

by dijamo 7/12/2012 - 3:20 pm (re: Another Trope)

I would think there would be some news source like Al Jazeera that would report if a claim by US was wrong. But some claim AQAP that wasn't killed right after the event doesn't come off as too credible to me.

But now we off away from constitutional matters and targetting US citizens etc, and into the weeds of whether the US should declare officially this or that. This is another debate (and, no, I don't believe has been perfect angels in this matter).

by Another Trope 7/12/2012 - 3:38 pm (re: dijamo)

I hope the NYT will suffice: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/world/middleeast/anwar-al-awlaki-a-us-citizen-in-americas-cross-hairs.html?ref=middleeast

Then, on Oct. 14, a missile apparently intended for an Egyptian Qaeda operative, Ibrahim al-Banna, hit a modest outdoor eating place in Shabwa. The intelligence was bad: Mr. Banna was not there, and among about a dozen men killed was the young Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who had no connection to terrorism and would never have been deliberately targeted.

It was a tragic error and, for the Obama administration, a public relations disaster, further muddying the moral clarity of the previous strike on his father and fueling skepticism about American assertions of drones’ surgical precision. The damage was only compounded when anonymous officials at first gave the younger Mr. Awlaki’s age as 21, prompting his grieving family to make public his birth certificate.

He had been born in Denver, said the certificate from the Colorado health department. In the United States, at the time his government’s missile killed him, the teenager would have just reached driving age.

by Dijamo * (not verified) 3/10/2013 - 1:19 pm (re: Another Trope)

We've let government blend "suspects", "indictee", "convict".... as well as "judicial review" with "self review" (or "a review of a few people sitting around the president who all think the same" if you require)

Whether a few more words of explanation would change the poll result, I don't know.

That 90% of America approved our invasion of Iraq under false pretenses didn't thrill me just because they got a majority of Democrats. It made me disgusted witht he party.

But you're scared, so anything anyone does to kill to keep you safe is fine. Maybe we should put that in the party platform (as I think it's already in the GOP's - time we admitted how scared we are - perhaps a big asterisk in the Constitution way up top is warranted - *unless we're scared, in which case Cider House rules)

by PeraclesPlease 7/11/2012 - 12:13 am (re: Another Trope)

The question is whether the threat is real or not. And whether the actions taken to deal with the threat are appropriate given the nature of that threat. Invading Iraq is a good example of an action that was inappropriate to the nature of the threat posed by Saddam's regime at the time of the invasion.

So this isn't about being scared and saying everything goes. I'll give you some credit and assume that you believe there is some level of threat posed by various terrorist networks on foreign soil. The question then becomes how does one deal with this threat effectively.

This will lead us back to the law enforcement vs. military approach to the threat. Some see it as only a law enforcement issue, others solely military, whereas I would fall into the camp that sees a mix of the two strategies is the way to go. The exact mixture is hard to pin down, and there is a case by case basis. Dealing with individuals in hinterlands of Yemen makes taking the law enforcement approach difficult, and not very effective.

Thus, we come to the question of whether we are willing to risk outcomes that arise from the less effective law enforcement approach rather than take a more effective short-term military approach, which does have the risk of creating more hatred toward the US in the long term. More things to balance.

I would throw out there simplifying or distorting why people take the position they do in matters such as this is one reason getting them to see the other point of view is so difficult. It might make you feel superior inside to believe that what leads people to the conclusions they do in matters such as foreign policy is that they are scared and just want it to stop. But it isn't always particularly accurate.

by Another Trope 7/11/2012 - 9:18 am (re: PeraclesPlease)

Why do you assume "less effective law enforcement"? What kind of war-monger are you? Haven't you been watching? Drone strikes piss people off - they kill innocents, and then more people join the opposition - it's a recruitment bonanza.

Policing may or may not be more effective, as it's difficult not to do something wrong on a human level here and there, and there's more exposure. But the human intelligence on the ground is frequently more valuable than the remote-attack approach.

But if our policing gets away from baseline war to actual policing, then we can do more anti-terrorism focused on democratic, judicial and other semblance of society approaches, rather than continuously suspending rule of law to play whack-a-mole.

And in general, we simply shouldn't be occupying any country for very long - figure out the mission, get in and out when 70-80% accomplished, lots of unfinished business elsewhere in the world.

by PeraclesPlease 7/11/2012 - 9:29 am (re: Another Trope)

I guess you didn't read my whole post since I bring up the fact that it creates more hatred.

But just how is law enforcement going to deal with those running around in the hinterlands of Yemen. I guess we could send a couple of INTERPOL personnel up in a jeep to whatever village they happen to be passing through and apprehend them in a peaceful manner.

by Another Trope 7/11/2012 - 10:19 am (re: PeraclesPlease)

Uh, why are we in Yemen at all? To please Saudi Arabia?

We had 20 years of the Ayatollah calling us the Great Satan and screaming "Death to America" - why is one loud-mouth US-born cleric such a burr in our butt? It's not like he's flying airplanes or financing anything. Beck said "turn the Mideast into glass", Awlaki said, "attack America". We're even - can we go back to our sitcoms now?

Come to think of it, we survived decades of Qaddafi, Saddam Hussein, the Ayatollah, Assad, Arafat, Ahmadinejad... - when did it become necessary to assassinate solely based on hate speech? Why did we become such pussies? <insert std disclaimer>

(Your framing said "less effective policing" - sometimes policing is more effective, and not just because of blowback hatred. But we've also confused real "policing" with "surge", anti-insurgency operations, etc.)

by PeraclesPlease 7/11/2012 - 10:54 am (re: Another Trope)

Trope, does not your pious bleating about the hinterlands of Yemen take on the stench of rank hypocrisy when you face the fact that in this instance the government had available the option to engage Awlaki grandpere on the merits but chose to move for dismissal on procedural grounds? The essence of due process is the right to be heard. Nobody had to go to Yemen to hear an informed and educated advocate. all that was needed was to abstain from procedural games.

by jollyroger 7/11/2012 - 10:02 pm (re: Another Trope)

The political question doctrine is not "procedural games." It's actually an important constitutional principle. Have you read the opinion? Your comment is the pious bleating, and a blatant falsehood. If that seems a bit nasty, (1) so is your comment, (2) I already called you on this bullshit last time you said it. It didn't get truer since then.

by Articleman 7/12/2012 - 1:48 pm (re: jollyroger)

Give me a fuckin break . You know perfectly well that a defendant may choose among a variety of responsive pleadings. To get to either the standing or political doctrine issue required an affirmative decision to file a motion as opposed to an answer where the merits could have been met rather than seek dismissal on procedural grounds.

by jollyroger 7/12/2012 - 2:49 pm (re: Articleman)

The political question doctrine is the merits in a suit on whether you can enjoin the government from engaging in military operations. It derives from the Constitutional separation of the powers of the judiciary from that of the legislature and the executive. I never heard anyone call that concept "procedural," and I am confident I never will again.

You are demonstrating (or propagating) a lack of basic understanding what the word "procedure" means. Procedure is a rule in court. Procedure is the act of a hearing, not what is heard in it.

By contrast, "substance" is when you argue that under the United States Constitution, the court does not have the power to hear a suit. In this case, because it presents a "political question" or one commended to a combination of the political branches, such as "Congress" and "the President."

by Articleman 7/12/2012 - 3:00 pm (re: jollyroger)

Let's walk through this slowly. 1. Awlaki (grandpere, for clarity) files an action for injunctive relief. 2. The US may default or respond. Their response may reach the merits, and argue that Anwar is a dangerous man who needs to be killed if he won't surrender, and litigate the competence of the "procedure" by which he got on the kill list in the first place. or They can argue (successfully ) the jurisdictional impediments. So I will humbly amend and extend: for procedural games substitute jurisdictional objections. My basic point is untouched. They could have CHOSEN to use the lawsuit as a chance to test their case and CHOSE not to.

by jollyroger 7/12/2012 - 3:13 pm (re: Articleman)

I would expect no other speed.

Here's another way to express what is 100% wrong in what you're saying. The government doesn't create the outer limit of federal judicial authority. That happened in 1787. The District Court explains this very well at pages 69-80, for anyone who doesn't need commenters to mediate their understanding of it. https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv1469-31

So your point is, hey, except for the fact that courts aren't allowed under that silly procedural piece, "The Constitution," to enjoin decisions that are in the nature of executing war, foreign policy, and military strikes, the government should have asked the Court to decide it anyway. But the District Court can't do that, any more than it could accept a delegation to be an administrative agency because you thought that was a good idea too. It's beyond the outer limit of the Court's power.

We could as well ask an Article III court to decide whether Minka Kelly is more attractive in a bathing suit than Kelly Upton, a question raised by recent issues of GQ and Esquire. But the federal court lacks jurisdiction over many questions, even questions we can debate with ardor and interest over the Internet.

by Articleman 7/12/2012 - 3:37 pm (re: jollyroger)

Thanks for the convenient cite. Page 1, "Defendant moves to dismiss" on five grounds, etc. etc. You appellate guys, you never wonder about how issues come up in the first place.

by jollyroger 7/12/2012 - 3:57 pm (re: Articleman)

Attempting to claim all efforts and intents to dismiss a case as created equal is just making you look foolish, I dare say.

by Another Trope 7/12/2012 - 4:29 pm (re: jollyroger)

For those who may not be familar with the Political Question Doctrine

An issue that the federal courts refuse to decide because it properly belongs to the decision-making authority of elected officials.

Political questions include such areas as the conduct of foreign policy, the ratification of constitutional amendments, and the organization of each state's government as defined in its own constitution. The rule preventing federal courts from deciding such cases is called the political question doctrine. Its purpose is to distinguish the role of the federal judiciary from those of the legislature and the executive, preventing the former from encroaching on either of the latter. Under the rule, courts may choose to dismiss cases even if they have jurisdiction over them. However, the rule has no precise formulation, and its development since the 1960s has sometimes been unpredictable.

by Another Trope 7/12/2012 - 2:57 pm (re: Articleman)

I hope they didn't teach you at that law school that trial judges raise standing or abstention as grounds for dismissing an action sua sponte did they?

by jollyroger 7/12/2012 - 3:00 pm (re: Articleman)

That the opinion decides the Constitutional issue presented (the political question doctrine) means you have no point. You're whining that it also said he had no standing, but the point is, no one has the right to use the courts to enjoin war or foreign policy. Silly procedural James Madison set it up that way.

by Articleman 7/12/2012 - 3:15 pm (re: jollyroger)

Did or did not the US move for dismissal?

by jollyroger 7/12/2012 - 3:29 pm (re: Articleman)

Sorry, "on their own" to dismiss, etc.

by jollyroger 7/12/2012 - 3:23 pm (re: jollyroger)

You have mistaken my debating a legal point with you for an opportunity to try to call attention to personal characteristics of me as an anonymous participant in a blog. This is not acceptable.

by Articleman 7/12/2012 - 3:56 pm (re: jollyroger)

This is great part a debate whether it is the necessary action that needs to be taken. In other words, even if everyone agreed it was constitutional for the president to be conducting these drone operations, we would still be debating. I am not claiming those who oppose this are calling for what they believe are necessary actions not to be taken (although there may be some out there who would argue even if necessary it is unconstitutional and thus cannot be done).

This is part of why this debate gets all squirrelly - sometimes it is about constitutionality, sometimes about the collateral damage, or the consequence of civilians being killed in regards to recruitment, sometimes about whether it is necessary at all to do them. Throw in the feelings about the military-industrial complex and one gets all kinds of tangents.

The nature of threat isn't just whether some bomb is going to go off the next day. It is about a process of a "underground" network being put into motion. Unlike a state, with its capital and standing army etc that readily present and can be monitored more or less, small portions of these networks are revealed for short bursts of time. One has no idea when the next "sighting" will be and thus require action.

You can characterize how I feel in what ever way makes you believe you're right. I simply see what the president and the team that develops the proposed target lists in the same way I see the recon teams and generals who make decisions about where to attack during a conventional warfare scenario. In my eyes it is no different. This is ultimately where we differ in my opinion.

And in conventional war and unconventional war - I do not agree with torture. (and I do not agree with extraordinary renditions) So, no, I don't agree with Liz Cheney on this front. If she says the sky is blue, then I will agree with her even though she is Liz Cheney.

I do believe for many people (not you personally) let their feelings about the Bush administration overly influence their assessment of the terrorist networks - to admit that there is a threat means they have to admit that there was some kernel of truth deep down somewhere in what the Bush administration was saying. And to admit that is unacceptable. It has to be all lies.

by Another Trope 7/11/2012 - 1:24 pm

Look. To support this kind of system is to support this kind of system. Thus, when the personnel change, as long as they continue to follow your rules - or absence of rules - then, you have nothing left to complain about.

And so, when Romney dies (inhaling a toxic blow-dart while touring the Amazonian interior), and a freaked-out President Santorum comes in, talks to his hand-picked CIA guys, demands to see the threat files, feels like he needs to show some bicep, and starts killing people, you have nothing left. In fact, in your version, there are no grounds for restraint on torture either (other than it makes you feel bad), or death squads, or Nun-raping, or all those other things you washed away in your earlier comments because previous Presidents did them.

Shorter - your system has no outside, or even outside-the-branch checks left.

Because you decided they weren't needed, all that was needed was trust - and after all, these were our guys. Don't you see something a bit bizarre in an American giving away the checks and balances across branches, and the Constitution, and the whole higher values thingie?

Yet somehow, to you this becomes me being soft on terrorism or wanting the entire American public to see every single word ever printed. These are truly stupid arguments, and I'm not making them, and yet they seem to be all you have left.

The simple goddamn question is, are there any legal processes or even just outside-the-executive branch restraints on who a President may kill. According to you, the only "process" seems to be an internal-to-the-Presidential-chain-of-command review of potential threats. That's it, that's all.

And if you don't get how far this has wandered from American-style democratic processes, then I think we have nothing left to discuss. Welcome to Tyranny.

by Qnonymous (not verified) 7/11/2012 - 2:29 pm (re: Another Trope)

First off I did not state the previous actions of presidents as a means to justify those actions as legal or constitutional - it was merely to assert that Obama is no more lethal than any other commander-in-chief.

Second, no where do I say the threat of terrorist organizations justifies any action taken to eliminate that threat. Just because I believe in a war using a bunker buster bomb is OK on a legitimate target, does not mean that I have to also agree that using nerve gas on that same target is also OK. I really don't see why that is so difficult to understand.

Using a targetted strike against a terrorist network is not nun-raping. Such an assertion is so beyond the pale or ridiculousness or something, I don't even know how to answer it.

But in the end isn't it makes one feel bad the only excuse we have between using a conventional bullet to end one's life and not mustard gas. Why not mustard gas? Well, because we say so, collectively, that it is not a decent way to kill someone. The same with torture and rape, which is a form of torture.

Because tell me in the constitution that says the president can't use biological warfare on its enemies? You know what it doesn't.

So let proclaim it now: Q would have been a-ok with us just mustard gassing all of Germany and Japan, because hey the constitution doesn't stop us, and the only reason we can come up with is that, well, doing that makes us feel bad.

The president has the right to make the call when it comes to an imminent threat. The problem with the terrorist network and its mode of operation, that threat becomes immensely difficult to detect in order to react. Therefore, in this unconventional war, the rules do change in the degree of latitude the president takes.

And I am glad you bring Santorum up because it allows me to say: if I was not a principled person, I would deny Obama this right not because he doesn't have the right, but because I am afraid of what the next person might do with this right.

And yes it is something that can be abused. That is why it is important to elect the best person we can. Which is the American democracy at work. And we hope we can create a culture in which a person who is elected has a sense of ethics and morality.

Ultimately, if what is happening is that president is waging war on those who threaten the US and our allies, and is taking acceptable steps (which is a judgment call), then that is not tyranny. I have seen no evidence that it is anything more than what they say it is. Which is another way of saying that the president is not given the "right" by the people to just off anyone he and his team damn well want. yes, in the short-term, there is a trust they maintaining to that criteria, and we don't know if they're giving us a bunch of lies. But that would be one hell of a conspiracy given the breadth of the attack drone operation.

by Another Trope 7/11/2012 - 3:57 pm (re: Qnonymous)

After reading this, I simply think you don't understand any of this, Trope - not democracy, your own Constitution, warfare, terrorism, trust, how to argue, none of it.

But I think it best if I just sign off, and let your words stand as is.

by Qnonymous (not verified) 7/11/2012 - 4:28 pm (re: Another Trope)

Look at the Bill of Rights and tell me it does not prohibit Presidential targeting of American citizens for death with no oversight, no trial, no protections. again let's ignore that because there is no way to escape the fact that Barack Obama is personally culpable for war crimes and for sending the US further down the path GWB started, and pretend it's just about the general war on terror..

The US doesn't not use mustard gas because we don't think it's nice. It's because it is against the freaking Geneva Conventions which we are a party to. Which is why the US is also not supposed to torture or carry out targeted killings. But our Nobel Peace Prize winning president doesn't give a shit about international law or our treaty obligations, and neither do you.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/21/drone-strikes-international-law-un

But of course Obama gave the Bush officials a pass on prosecutions, so he could expand on the unitary executive beyond all laws and oversight. I'm sure the next administration will be as kind to the Obama admin and overlook his illegal expansion of presidential power, so that that administration can continue the trend of the imperial presidency that has zero checks/bounds as long as the president says it's terrorism related. Democrats and Republicans hand in hand supporting the destruction of the constitution and our international treaty obligations. So happy together.

by Anonymous dijamo (not verified) 7/11/2012 - 5:16 pm (re: Another Trope)

And why did all those countries come together and sign a treaty that said not to use mustard gas - what was their rationale for excluding it? simply put because it wasn't very nice and made them feel bad when they saw the impact of this and other chemical weapons. in other words, they said 'we are still going to try kill each other, but let's do it in a way that is at least half way decent, if that's possible when we are trying to kill each other.

In the final analysis, I would hope we don't use mustard gas just because the Geneva Convention tells us we can't - this would be having the morality of a six year old who doesn't steal the cookies because daddy and mommy told him not to. I would hope we don't use mustard gas because deep down it goes against our sense of humanity (ie makes us feel bad), and our signature on the Geneva Convention merely is a reflection of that sentiment and our commitment to not use weapons like tear gas.

True pacifists would come up with a different list than I would about what is morally okay for a country to do in the effort to protect its interests (what those interests are is another debate). (I would note that I do have the upmost admiration for true pacifists and there are times when I wish I could sincerely hold the same view they do, given the world as it is.) To the pacifist the use of a bunker busting bomb and mustard gas are both morally reprehensible regardless of the context in which it used.

It is too easy for people to slip into the view that where they see the line drawn between what is morally acceptable and not morally acceptable is somehow an absolute and tangible line. Consequently, when they see people in their view step over that line, they conclude these people have now stated all things not morally acceptable are ok.

This conclusion is driven by the fear of actually seeing the nature of our laws, our sense of right and wrong, as ultimately arbitrary, some emergent feature of the complex interplay of experiences, emotions, thoughts and visions. This is why so many turn to God, or some god, because it restores that stability that comes from the absolute and eternal.

by Another Trope 7/12/2012 - 9:05 am (re: Anonymous dijamo)

I would hope people stop at traffic lights because we decided that we needed those traffic lights, and not because they're defining their own weakness or strength.

We don't need to renegotiate the Geneva Conventions every day - that was done long ago through painstaking self-observation- we just need to follow them.

by PeraclesPlease 7/12/2012 - 9:30 am (re: Another Trope)

Sure some turn to God, others make a politician their God who is all wise and can be trusted to use his power wisely and judiciously. No need to second guess him or for checks and balances or limits on his power. You trust him (and the American government) completely. Justt as long as the mention the word terrorism, whatever it takes to eradicate the "threat."

I prefer to trust in law and treaties and obligations, and expect that a President upholds those obligations. You know, all that stuff you and Obama think can be disregarded at the mention of the word terrorism.

by Anonymous dijamo (not verified) 7/12/2012 - 9:36 am (re: Another Trope)

There are all kinds of trust. To say I trust the president does not mean I do not second guess him or that there shouldn't be limits to his power. A little analogy - you can trust your teenage kid to go out with his or her friends and stay out til 2 in the morning. You don't trail them like a private detective, or have them call you every hour on the hour to check in. But when he or she comes in the door, you still look at his or her eyes to see if they're red or the pupils are all dilated. In other words, you trust them but you also are realistic about human nature being what it is (not to mention the nature of a teenager, the power of peer pressure, etc).

There are parameters to the use of drones - if there is evidence that the attacks are being used outside of those parameters, then the trust is lost. At this time, I have seen nothing regarding the intent of the attacks to suggest the Obama administration and the military have moved outside those parameters.

This in the end comes back to whether 1) one believes we are at war at some level with terrorist networks, in the sense that the rules of war apply to actions taken by the government; and 2) whether the nature of those networks and the consequential nature of the threat requires at times a different approach, ie some new rules of engagement.

Saying that some new rules are required is not saying anything goes, just as saying the president can develop a process by which high-value targets are determined in the conduct of that war is not saying the president can claim anyone is a high-value target just because he says they are.

As far as international law goes, it is not as clear cut as you might like to think. There is must debate among the experts as to how to apply the frameworks developed around state vs state warfare, as opposed to state vs terrorism. I have to find a couple of documents so I can respond (since I base my conclusions on the thoughts of those who spend their life studying this stuff), and I want to be able to quote them.

[I am not claiming that the US, under Obama administration, has never go over the line]

by Another Trope 7/12/2012 - 10:36 am (re: Anonymous dijamo)

I'd say it's a good time to go back and read what you've written in this thread.

Plus, when a President's "signature attack" is for any bunch of 18-29 year olds standing around "looking up to no good" it might as well be nun-raping - senseless murder is as bad as senseless rape.

Regarding "conspiracy", we know most of the Gitmo inmates are in there for just someone picking them up and collecting a bounty, but we can't let them out for... appearances. We know the Obama DoJ is defending all Bush-era "interrogators"/torturers, and stonewalling on any release of info - even defending people who intentionally erased bunches of tapes to destroy evidence of torture when Congress asked to see them. But you think "conspiracy" is difficult to pull off. No, with this kind of support and nodding assent to malfeasance, conspiracy is very easy to pull off.

by PeraclesPlease 7/11/2012 - 7:12 pm (re: Another Trope)

Can you please provide the evidence where Obama made the decision to include someone on the kill list is based on the fact they were just 18-29 year olds standing around looking up to no good. Because this discussion is focused on that particular facet of the system of attack drones, for the most part. If there is evidence of that, then I would agree the system is broken, and the Obama needs to be restrained.

Gitmo is a whole another issue (and a very complex one), one in which I don't agree with the Obama administration on, and I don't believe this thread is at a point where it really can be discussed appropriately. (Moreover, I don't agree with the way Congress has behaved on this issue, and are in more ways than Obama at fault for the current situation regarding Gitmo. Of course, given the majority of American People are ok with the current situation, I doubt we will get much resolved in the near future.)

by Another Trope 7/12/2012 - 12:19 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

I would add that Congress controls the purse strings, so it can completely or severely defund the attack drone program if it wants, and there is nothing the president can do about it. So another way American democracy can work is to elect a Congress that would do that. But given the polling numbers, I doubt is going to happen. Which is also American democracy at work, like it or not. The People have spoken. Maybe what you want is the tyranny of the minority to impose their view of foreign policy on the will of the People. :P

by Another Trope 7/11/2012 - 4:01 pm (re: Qnonymous)

That cow left the barn some time ago, say in 2004 when it became unpatriotic to not fund the troops once we sent them there, so Congress bedazzled gave up power of the purse string, leaving them with... squat.

The will of the People may be to be deluded and abused, grant you that. The tyranny of the minority did impose this, and the people seem to have resigned themselves to the insult.

by PeraclesPlease 7/11/2012 - 7:23 pm (re: Another Trope)

Trope, are you obtuse or merely disingenuous? the. point of the Bill of Rights is to restrain the majority. C'mon, you surely can do better. If not drop the Camus avatar and pick something more appropriate, daffy duck maybe.

by jollyroger 7/11/2012 - 9:30 pm (re: Another Trope)

Did you notice the :P at the end of the sentence? Sometimes after the debate goes around and around (and I have been trying to respond to more one person), even I get to the point where i whip out my poetic license and ask one delve deeper into the snark for the meaning.

by Another Trope 7/12/2012 - 12:25 pm (re: jollyroger)

djamo: It was about a 16 year old American kid. Reading is fundamental.
trope: So when someone points out that a 16 year old US citizen was killed in Yemen during a drone attack,
Esquire:Anwar al-Awlaki fled into the mountains of Yemen. The boy lived with his grandfather Nasser in the capital city of Sanaa. He didn't see his father for two years. He loved his father and missed him. He was sixteen.( -before he got into the terror stuff)

The 'kid' Anwar al-Awlaki was 40 years old, and his buddy Samir was 25. They were not 16 when killed. Who was the 16 year old you are referring to distinguished Dagbloggers?

The US didn't kill a hundred thousand Yemeni's or 5,000 US troops in the operation, an improvement on Iraq, which Use of Force Resolution, did NOT get a majority of Democrats voting for it. (That 90% of America approved our invasion of Iraq under false pretenses didn't thrill me just because they got a majority of Democrats. PeraclesPlease)

by NCD 7/11/2012 - 11:21 pm

Buckle up. folks. We are about to start going places.

by A Guy Called LULU 7/11/2012 - 11:32 pm (re: NCD)

The age is not the point Lulu! If either terrorist WAS 16 wouldn't the most lethal President in history have killed him anyway? Or even 10 years old? Four ten year olds add up to 40 so there, what's the difference?

by NCD 7/11/2012 - 11:36 pm (re: A Guy Called LULU)

You know what, you are exactly fuckin' right. How could I say different, I have counted with exactly that method myself. He's [he, she, it, whatever] a gook, he's dead, he's a go-reella. So was his momma. So fuck him.

But once again, you're right, it don't make no difference, so fuck you, too.

by A Guy Called LULU 7/11/2012 - 11:46 pm (re: NCD)

Talking about his Momma now? My point was Obama did not target a 16 year old, and did not kill any 16 year old in Yemen as the posters above seem to believe. He targeted a 40 year old self-proclaimed known terrorist. No one knows how many kids Bush killed in Iraq.

by NCD 7/12/2012 - 12:18 am (re: A Guy Called LULU)

Actually, the truth is more complicated: Anwar al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, was killed in a strike, just not the same one that killed his father.

This Time Story has the correct info ,.most of what everyone needs in order to conveniently know what they are actually arguing about!

He was killed a week or two afterwards (I can't find the exact time span, the Yemen government reported two weeks later) in a drone strike that the Obama administration said was targeted at al-Qaeda leader Ibrahim al-Banna, who was confirmed killed in the same strike.

First, a point complicating initial story reports that one might see: the Yemeni government in the initial report of the deaths from the strike said Abduhlrahman was 21 years old, but then the al-Awlaki family came up with his Denver, Colorado birth certificate showing he was 16.

Before he was hit in that strike, Abdulrahman was in Yemen at the family home in Sana (ala going to the "old country" for the summer) but his father wasn't there, his father was hiding out in his secret remote tribal area as is often a requisite of his line of work.

According to al-Awlaki family, Abdulrahman decided he wanted to find Dad, he started out on a trek to find him, and a few days later, before he found him, the drone strike killed Dad. And a few days/two weeks after that, another strike killed Abdulrahman.

According to the Obama administration, the two strikes were unrelated, and they did not even know Abdulrahman was there at al-Banna's location, nor did they know about the 17-year-old Yemeni Awlaki cousin who was also killed in that hit, that both the teens were unintended collateral damage of a hit on Ibrahim al Banna. (from the article: A U.S. official said the young man "was in the wrong place at the wrong time" )

Anwar's father (Addulrahman's grandfather,) the one who filed suit for Anwar in the US, from what he says in the article, seems to believe that the Obama administration targeted his grandson and is just making up that al-Banna was a target of value.

And my two cents: if the Obama administration really wanted to make the story more palatable to the American public, they would have implied that they really were targeting everyone hanging around al-Banna's location, teens included, including Anwar's son, that they knew he was there, and not say the kid was at the wrong place at the wrong time. They could, if they wanted to, imply he was training to be an acolyte of his father, and in doing so imply that the searching for dad story was BS from the family members in denial about what other family members have been up to. that he and the other teen relative were not just coincidentally hanging with a known terrorist but were in on his work. But they didn't do that, instead they implied he was an innocent kid whose death was unfortunate collateral damage of a hit on someone they deemed a known terrorist.

by artappraiser 7/12/2012 - 3:42 am (re: NCD)

Here is Al Jazeera's Oct. 15, 2011 report on the Yemeni government announcement of the successful hit on Al Banna:

Senior al-Qaeda figure 'killed in Yemen'

[.....]Yemeni defence ministry says al-Qaeda media chief among nine killed in air raid in south of the country.

The ministry said in a statement on Saturday that Egyptian-born Ibrahim al-Banna was killed on Friday night in Shabwa province.

Security officials said the air strike was among five that targeted al-Qaeda positions in Shabwa.

The statement added that al-Banna was wanted "internationally" for "planning attacks both inside and outside Yemen"

"He was one of the group's most dangerous operatives," it said.

The first strike late Friday targeted a house in the Azan district of Shabwa, but hit just after al-Qaeda fighters had a meeting in the building, security officials and tribal elders said.

They said a second strike then targeted two sport utility vehicles in which al-Banna was traveling along with several others, destroying the vehicles and leaving the men's bodies charred. It was not clear whether other participants in the meeting were targeted in separate strikes.
[.....]

This announcement did not have identities yet for any of the other eight people killed, much less Abdullah al-Awlaki.

by artappraiser 7/12/2012 - 3:47 am (re: artappraiser)

The often simply don't know identities - signoff might be "group of men from 18-29 looking up to no good".

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=3&_r=2

It is also because Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.

Counterterrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good. “Al Qaeda is an insular, paranoid organization — innocent neighbors don’t hitchhike rides in the back of trucks headed for the border with guns and bombs,” said one official, who requested anonymity to speak about what is still a classified program.

This counting method may partly explain the official claims of extraordinarily low collateral deaths. In a speech last year Mr. Brennan, Mr. Obama’s trusted adviser, said that not a single noncombatant had been killed in a year of strikes. And in a recent interview, a senior administration official said that the number of civilians killed in drone strikes in Pakistan under Mr. Obama was in the “single digits” — and that independent counts of scores or hundreds of civilian deaths unwittingly draw on false propaganda claims by militants.

by PeraclesPlease 7/12/2012 - 7:57 am (re: artappraiser)

I believe Bill Clinton set this standard. When you target a small area or building with like 75 cruise missiles, it's highly likely there's going to be "collateral damage," you do the best you can to limit them, but you accept it's going to happen. And if it's a remote area, all identities may never be known.

Terrorist targets by their very nature are different from military targets; terrorists don't have a military infrastructure to attack, they live and work in what most people would define as civilian situations, on purpose--is part of the package, and why it's so insidious and difficult to fight.

by artappraiser 7/12/2012 - 9:39 am (re: PeraclesPlease)

Bill Clinton didn't manipulate civilian death counts by classifying every military age male killed by drone a TERRORIST by default. If the identities are unknown, then they were collateral damage.

by Anonymous dijamo (not verified) 7/12/2012 - 9:59 am (re: artappraiser)

So right you are. Mr. Bill just participated in machinations worthy of a war criminal. Like, we get him agitating for NATO's bombing of Bosnia in the early 1990's, and then finally we get him leading the charge (via Wesley Clark) in Serbia in 1999: Thousands killed (including civilians in case you've forgotten), zillions of dollars worth of damage to civilian property, and widespread use of depleted uranium, irradiating the soil and the people (read: civilians again) for as good as forever.

Not to mention the illegal use of cluster bombs.

Don't get me wrong, I like old Bill big time. But if you think this approach is better than what Obama's doing, well, I think I beg to differ.

Maybe you need to review the history:

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0101e.asp

by Anonymous (not verified) 7/12/2012 - 10:57 am (re: Anonymous dijamo)

Wow, agitating for bombing Bosnia - what an ass, should have let 1000 Srbenica's & Mostars happen instead to show he's a proper peacenick.

And then intervening in Kosovo??? What was he thinking.

Sorry, Human Rights Watch could only find 500 civilians killed but it's okay, Clinton's a fair target so we can exaggerate. "Zillions of dollars"? Uh, uh think all of Kosovo can be bought on free market for about $500 million.

In any case, you might notice the one big difference - Clinton got in and out. Obama's still mucking about.

by PeraclesPlease 7/12/2012 - 11:35 am (re: Anonymous)

I thought you pulled up all the facts ahead of time?

Only 13 missiles were fired at Sudan's pharmaceutical plant.

However, the attack was at night, and only 11 people appear to have died from the attack, including the night watchman. (some reports quoted only the watchman)

Because of flawed CIA evidence of the pharmaceutical company's involvement (and the owner's US funds were at least unfrozen - I wish we had compensated him for the mistake) - the attack can be seen as a justified war response to what was considered an act of war, targeting what was wrongly perceived to be supplies for waging that war.

But as Hitchens notes here, the compartmentalizing of opinion in authorizing the attack was specifically the standard that should have been rejected afterwards - with more feedback from different groups in the military & administration, the response would have likely been limited to the more justifiable Afghani training camps.

Nevertheless, the military response was seen as a time-sensitive response partly against the Sudanese government for harboring terrorists and for what was seen as an ally facility infrastructure to bin Laden for the embassy and similar attacks.

This is so far away from targeting a bunch of guys standing around presumed to be terrorists in a years-long engagement supporting some other government's internal struggles.

by PeraclesPlease 7/12/2012 - 10:45 am (re: artappraiser)

Perhaps AA chose the wrong example. As I mentioned above, let's talk Kosovo instead:

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0101e.asp

by anna am 7/12/2012 - 11:19 am (re: PeraclesPlease)

Per the Human Rights piece linked above, the "cluster bombs on hospitals" is a gross exaggeration - there were only about 25 questionable or bad targets they list altogether (not that I agree with Serb Radio & TV, and the Chinese were doing spy work for Serbia out of their embassy - and I guess taking out bridges to inconvenience the population & transport is now considered naughty - though they did stop targeting bridges during daytime when more populated).

150 civilians died due to cluster bombs and then the US issued a secret directive to *stop using them* after a Human Rights report (the British continued). Just like Obama would do, right?

"Human Rights Watch concludes that about one-third of the incidents in which civilians died occurred in Kosovo, many of them attacks on mobile targets or military forces in the field. Attacks on convoys were some of the deadliest incidents of the war, and also resulted in NATO tightening rules of engagement so that pilots had to visually identify military vehicles before mounting attacks."

Wow, identifying military targets, not just military-aged males standing around.

So what is our point here?

by PeraclesPlease 7/12/2012 - 11:48 am (re: anna am)

It appears that you have gone from saying that count causalities of an attack not as civilians when they just military-aged males standing around, to saying that a target is determined by the fact they are military-aged males standing around. There is nothing I have seen which indicates a target is based simply on this criteria - a target is based on intel that indicates at least one high-value target. But if distorting things makes you feel better.

by Another Trope 7/12/2012 - 12:35 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

They will target something, and then when men come out afterwards to investigate, they target those men as well. They're targeting funerals, for Goddess sake. Read the NY Times link, hunt around say Emptywheel.net or other sources, enough's out there to get the idea.

by PeraclesPlease 7/12/2012 - 1:10 pm (re: Another Trope)

Again, the topic starts getting spreadout - are we talking about President Obama and the kill list, or are we talking about the entire attack drone program, which includes the signature strikes. I wouldn't say that 1) mistakes haven't been made, and 2) the overall program needs to be reviewed, an specific tactical decision reviewed. Even with the funeral, it was still going after a terrorist target. Whether a funeral should be used to draw someone out of hiding is worthy of debate (I would say "no, not a legit way to get a target).

But as one of your links pointed out:

Just days after taking office, the president got word that the first strike under his administration had killed a number of innocent Pakistanis. “The president was very sharp on the thing, and said, ‘I want to know how this happened,’ “ a top White House adviser recounted.

In response to his concern, the C.I.A. downsized its munitions for more pinpoint strikes. In addition, the president tightened standards, aides say: If the agency did not have a “near certainty” that a strike would result in zero civilian deaths, Mr. Obama wanted to decide personally whether to go ahead.

And then we are back to Obama making the final decision debate.

by Another Trope 7/12/2012 - 1:48 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

oops, I mistakenly used the link to the Al-Shifa wikipedia page when I mean to insert this one:

Cruise missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan (August 1998)

because I glanced at it when I was reading the above wikipedia entry.

I was really thinking more about the Afghanistan strike, because it was very similar to current drone strikes in Yemen and northwest Pakistan That one was the one that was 75 missiles.

You really don't see how similar this is, do you? You really don't see how much your arguments against similarity when people point out similarity in policy between the Clintons and Obama just look like ridiculous prejudice? I'll be the first one to say Bill Clinton was/is waaaay more talented than Obama and has a lot more empathy genes, but really, policy-wise, the arguments from you vehement anti-Obama folks about the differences just often look ridiculous (on economic matters, too!) When challenged with similarities, you pick nits, in order to continue your Obama = evil narrative.

And like Flavius commented a while back, it's then that your Obama prejudices just look very personal to many readers. Any differences in policy and general governing theory between the Clintons and Obama are just so miniscule in the grand scheme of things, it's only in political talent and strategy that they differ a great deal.

Edit to add: Don't get me wrong, I was never an Obama fan I didn't "get" Obamania, furthermore, it disturbed me.. I didn't like his campaign speeches with simplistic plagiarism of RFK and MLK, they seemed phony, and I don't like his presidential speeches now.. I don't like his cool/cold manner, and I don't understand why it was ever an attraction. Many a time he has reminded me of Dukakis. And other things, like I don't like his and Michelle's veneration military service.

But I think it's very intellectually dishonest to try to argue a big difference in policy between him and Bill Clinton. It's just not there. Passions, talent- big difference, policy choices-not so much.

by artappraiser 7/12/2012 - 12:16 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

Hardly dishonest. Clinton was able to do 8 years of overflight on Iraq with only 1 time ratcheting up missile strikes to push UN cooperation. He kept out of Bosnia mostly, and made Kosovo a quick one with group support. He encouraged democracy movement in Iran without having to saber rattle. The targets in Afghanistan were training camps - a bit more sinister than just hostile civilian territory at large - and their intelligence was good in this case, that bin Laden was holed up in one, but he got suspicious from an arrest so wasn't there. And this was a single day's strike.

How is that similar to doing years of drone attacks with bungled intelligence, lots of mistakes, participation in undeclared wars like in Somalia and Yemen, upping the ground war in Afghanistan with no obvious goal in mind.

Do I think Clinton would be parading around the assassination of bin Laden? wasn't our pressure in Yugoslavia to oust Milosevic peacefully (and bring him to the Hague), just like the support for the Orange Revolution in Ukraine and Rose Revolution in Georgia? Can I not honestly call these differences? How did he engage with Israel/Palestine and North Ireland and North Korea?

I grant that the cruise missile attacks were as much to show we'd respond as anything, but I'm also someone who accepted that Bush couldn't just leave the Iraq situation as-is in unknown state post-9/11, that the pressure of opening up or war was a valid threat in 2002. Even with drone strikes, I'd be less critical if they were part of an actual war, say October 2001, when there were actual enemy combatants vs. this low-level guerrilla war we're partially responsible for. That still wouldn't mean attacks on civilians with no 2nd thoughts - yes, combatants have hidden among civilians in numerous wars, and you can't just march the lot of them off the cliff. Unless you're British. (the atrocities of how the Mau-Mau were treated in Kenya are just coming out, though still relatively ignored and scorned. And we know a bit more about the British occupation of Iraq.)

by PeraclesPlease 7/12/2012 - 1:32 pm (re: artappraiser)

Clinton/Berger policy on assassination of terrorists by military:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_6.pdf

My summary version of that 13-page PDF:

Sheeet, unfortunately we've got to quit with the missile attacks right now because:

1) collateral loss using missiles upwards of 300 per incident is a bit too much

2) domestic and global politics won't allow more missile use right now

BUT I want you guys to keep updating that target list! I want that list current until the day I leave office! We might figure out a better way to kill them yet, (like maybe someone will invent something like armed drones.) I want your ideas on how to do it by other means as soon as you have any, whenever you have any.. Exception for bin Laden- do anything you've got to do if you have the chance, no matter the cost, monetarily, missiles high collateral or otherwise. And keep updating that list.

by artappraiser 7/12/2012 - 2:01 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

Yep.

by Articleman 7/12/2012 - 2:25 pm (re: artappraiser)

It isn't about quantity: Did Clinton have the right as president to send in cruise missiles on a suspected terrorist camp (with a high-value target) even though no declaration of war had been passed by Congress, and there was no evidence that those in the camp posed an imminent threat to the US, only a possible threat sometime in the future.

by Another Trope 7/12/2012 - 1:52 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

The very height of Obamabotness. You have no idea what the fuck you are talking about, yet you are certain Obama is right. *golf clap*. Well done.

by Anonymous Dija (not verified) 7/12/2012 - 7:37 am (re: NCD)

just to pile on, it is particularly obtuse to get facts as wrong as NCD did when they are set forth in the linked article. Lazy, as well as bottish.

by jollyroger 7/12/2012 - 11:32 am (re: Anonymous Dija)

It was because he botched the facts so completely when defending something so controversial that I was anticipating replies and mentally chuckling. Expected to keep doing so. Didn't anticipate saying any more myself. Then I had a sudden mood shift.

by A Guy Called LULU 7/12/2012 - 12:42 pm (re: jollyroger)

In the News

The Biggest Obama Scandals Are Proven and Ignored
The Biggest Obama Scandals Are Proven and Ignored

submitted by A Guy Called LULU 18 hours ago

Prompted by Peggy Noonan's claim in The Wall Street Journal that "we are in the midst of the worst Washington scandal since Watergate," Andrew Sullivan steps forward to defend Pres. Obama's honor. "Can she actually believe this?," he asks incredulously.

Read the article at http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/05/the-biggest-obama-scandals-are-proven-and-ignored/275960/

1 comment
Congress defies White House with new round of Iran sanctions
Congress defies White House with new round of Iran sanctions

submitted by artappraiser 22 hours ago

By Julian Pecquet, The Hill, May 18, 2013

Congress is ramping up a new round of sanctions against Iran, ignoring the Obama administration's request to let diplomacy run its course.

In back-to-back hearings this week, lawmakers on key House and Senate panels put the State and Treasury departments on notice that their patience is wearing thin after the latest round of talks last month failed to produce a deal. Both chambers have legislative efforts in the works – the House foreign affairs panel will vote next week – but the administration is warning against any moves that could undermine international support for the existing sanctions against Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program [....]

Read the article at http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/300537-congress-defies-white-house-with-new-round-of-iran-sanctions

Add new comment
From Fearsome Predator to Man’s Best Friend (dogs may have...
From Fearsome Predator to Man’s Best Friend (dogs may have tamed themselves)

submitted by artappraiser 23 hours ago

By Carl Zimmer, New York Times/Science, May 16/17, 2013

An article that summarizes the recent work of Ya-Ping Zhang, a geneticist at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, who has led an international network of scientists who have compared pieces of DNA from different canines which is pointing to the theory that dogs domesticated themselves.

But the article's message is not just what it first appears to be. When you get to the concluding paragraphs there are some real though provokers:

[....] SLC6A4 may have played a crucial part in this change, because serotonin influences aggression.

To test these ideas,...

Read the article at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/science/dogs-from-fearsome-predator-to-mans-best-friend.html?src=me

Add new comment
Video: Georgian gay rights activists attacked by mob on...
Video: Georgian gay rights activists attacked by mob on International Day Against Homophobia

submitted by artappraiser 1 day ago

By Neha Paliwal, Passport @ ForeignPolicy.com, May 17, 2013

On Friday, chaotic clashes broke out in Georgia as an angry mob -- comprised mainly of young men but also including robed priests and some women -- descended on a gay rights rally commemorating International Day Against Homophobia. A day earlier, the head of the Georgian Orthodox Church had demanded that authorities stop the rally, calling it a "violation of the majority's right."

According to EurasiaNet, the mob, which numbered...

Read the article at http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/05/17/video_georgian_gay_rights_activists_attacked_by_mob_on_international_day_against_homophobia

Add new comment
Russia reveals identity of CIA Moscow chief following Ryan...
Russia reveals identity of CIA Moscow chief following Ryan Fogle's expulsion

submitted by artappraiser 1 day ago

By Miriam Elder in Moscow, The Guardian, May 17, 2013

Federal Security Service spokesman breaches protocol as he accuses US agency of crossing 'red line' in its recruitment efforts

Read the article at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/17/russia-reveal-identity-cia-moscow-chief

Add new comment

Latest Comments

Who else are you associated

in Obama Scandals: The Quest...
Flavius 1 hour ago
A cheating conservative

in Obama Scandals: The Quest...
Flavius 1 hour ago
So you would not have

in Obama Scandals: The Quest...
rmrd0000 2 hours ago
Probably the wise thing to

in Obama Scandals: The Quest...
Resistance 3 hours ago
Do you not find it more than

in Obama Scandals: The Quest...
EmmaZahn 4 hours ago
The way I've heard it, they

in Obama Scandals: The Quest...
Aaron Carine 5 hours ago
No prob. I was just looking

in Slaughter In Syria?
PeraclesPlease 5 hours ago
Are you in the camp of those

in Obama Scandals: The Quest...
Resistance 8 hours ago
I agree with your thoughts

in Obama Scandals: The Quest...
Resistance 8 hours ago
Yes, you're right, you're

in Obama Scandals: The Quest...
ocean-kat 11 hours ago
Or they may say "That may be

in Obama Scandals: The Quest...
Resistance 11 hours ago
As for the democratic-leaning

in Obama Scandals: The Quest...
Resistance 12 hours ago
Does it surprise you that

in Obama Scandals: The Quest...
Resistance 12 hours ago
It seems that you think that

in Obama Scandals: The Quest...
rmrd0000 13 hours ago
Still about control..... The

in Obama Scandals: The Quest...
Resistance 13 hours ago

Book of the Month

From the Readers

Creative corner

From the Dagbloggers

Hits of the Day

The Lethal Presidency of Barack Obama

In the News

Latest Comments

Archives