Justice Dept Can Order Drone Strikes On Americans

[RealGatorFan]

Wow. This is scary stuff and sorry you libs out there, this article came from your own media's mouths. So you can't say it's from "Faux News" so it's fabricated.

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite

A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.

That means anyone is fair game to the Obama administration, even those that are deemed rivals. If I were Rush, Hannity, Trump, and any other "right-wing extremist", I'd be concerned. Militia groups should be on the lookout. Now you know why we need assault rifles.....no way you can shoot down these things with a hunting rifle (although not much chance with anything else).

[Spurffelbow833]

I'm actually more concerned about one of these things crashing into my house and killing my family because the "pilot" is incompetent. There's a lot to be said for personally sitting in the projectile you're hurling through the sky in terms of a)perceiving and b)caring about the danger you could represent to others. How many of these "pilots" (I choke on the word) are going to be underachievers whose parents finally found a way to get them to put down the PS3 and move out of their house and get a job?

Of course, good luck getting compensated for the damages if that happens, assuming you survive the impact.

[oragator1]

This is the exact same kind of memo that folks in the Bush administration gave themselves the OK to have "enhanced interrogation techniques" with.
There's something wrong with a system where the government can make these kinds of decisions through a secret process, execute them through clandestine activity, without them ever seeing the light of day. Something isn't legal because an official says it is, it's legal because a court says it is.
Just one more example of post 9/11 hysteria eroding the bedrocks of our system.

[gatorev12]

I'm actually more concerned about one of these things crashing into my house and killing my family because the "pilot" is incompetent. There's a lot to be said for personally sitting in the projectile you're hurling through the sky in terms of a)perceiving and b)caring about the danger you could represent to others. How many of these "pilots" (I choke on the word) are going to be underachievers whose parents finally found a way to get them to put down the PS3 and move out of their house and get a job?

Of course, good luck getting compensated for the damages if that happens, assuming you survive the impact.

Civilian survivors have been compensated in the past when other military planes have crashed and caused damage to property or a person...why would drones be any different?

[Spurffelbow833]

Civilian survivors have been compensated in the past when other military planes have crashed and caused damage to property or a person...why would drones be any different?

I'm thinking more in terms of law enforcement and civilian security applications at the behest of DHS. If the cops crash one of these things into your house, it will be like a SWAT team kicking in the wrong door. "Oops, sorry. Have a nice day."

[gator996]

You won't worry about the damage from these crashing into your house....
http://news.yahoo.com/uk-sends-hand-held-helicopter-drones-war-zone-101428321--finance.html

http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/L68uMR_WzXYo5ih.aDOk5A--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Y2g9MTMzMTtjcj0xO2N3PTIwMDA7ZHg9MD tkeT0wO2ZpPXVsY3JvcDtoPTQyMDtxPTg1O3c9NjMw/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/0804bd213bb78a04280f6a7067007014.jpg

LONDON (AP) — British soldiers in Afghanistan have been issued with surveillance drones so small they can fit in the palm of a man's hand.

The Scandinavian-designed Black Hornet Nano weighs as little as 16 grams (roughly half an ounce) — the same as a finch. The 4-inch (10-centimeter) -long helicopter is fitted with a tiny camera which relays still images and video to a remote terminal.

"We used it to look for insurgent firing points and check out exposed areas of the ground before crossing, which is a real asset," said Sgt. Christopher Petherbridge, with Britain's Brigade Reconnaissance Force. In a statement, he called the Hornet easy to operate and said it offered "amazing capability to the guys on the ground."

The military said Sunday that the toy-like Hornet is capable of flying even in windy conditions.

[gator1986]

Start attacking Americans it will be the downfall of the US Government... I do not believe any of this, there are more gun owners outside the military than within. If they want to see society fall, if they want to watch police die, firefighters, EMT's, etc... etc.... Then they will start attacking Americans, which I do not believe the the people will stand for. It will be the straw that breaks the camels back. I also personally believe if they asked military personnel to attack the citizens of the United States, 1/8 of them actually would, the other half would turn around and fire back at them instead.

[northgagator]

I'm thinking more in terms of law enforcement and civilian security applications at the behest of DHS. If the cops crash one of these things into your house, it will be like a SWAT team kicking in the wrong door. "Oops, sorry. Have a nice day."

Wait a minute.....if a cop drone accidentally crashes into my house it is like SWAT team mistakenly picking my house and kicking in my door?

I understand your point.
I too have concerns with the Local LEO'S using drones to kill. I am OK with them using drones for surveillance and search and rescue.
As far as one crashing into my house I believe that is more in line of having a police cruiser hitting my car or house.

[gator996]

Start attacking Americans it will be the downfall of the US Government... I do not believe any of this, there are more gun owners outside the military than within. If they want to see society fall, if they want to watch police die, firefighters, EMT's, etc... etc.... Then they will start attacking Americans, which I do not believe the the people will stand for. It will be the straw that breaks the camels back. I also personally believe if they asked military personnel to attack the citizens of the United States, 1/8 of them actually would, the other half would turn around and fire back at them instead.

This has been in effect because 2 American citizens have been killed by drones because they were Al-Qaeda leaders..

Do we have to pick the American terrorists off the battlefield and give them a trial before execution or can we simply kill them as enemy combatants?

Conservatives turn everything in paranoia these days?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OnpkDWbeJs

[rampartgator]

From the point of view of Civil Liberties in general and what's left of the 4th amendment in particular I think that these miniature survellance drones represent a far greater domestic threat than predator-type military strikes.

If I want to just chill in my patio without being spied on how do I know if that tweety bird 40 feet in the air is actually a bird or a camera platform? I can absolutely see a legitimate law enforcement use for these devices when searching neighborhoods for fleeing suspects in a violent crime. They are bound to be far cheaper and quicker to deploy than a helicopter and crew.

But if the cops just want to go on a fishing expedition without a warrant it just got far, far easier for them to do.

[cocodrilo]

Do we have to pick the American terrorists off the battlefield and give them a trial before execution or can we simply kill them as enemy combatants?


We can count on U.S. intelligence in deciding to execute. Didn't it do a good job on the WMDs in Iraq?

[wgbgator]

Is this news? They've already killed an American citizen (and his kid) with a drone attack in Yemen several years ago. And they've been codifying the "rules" for awhile. And the left-wing media has covered it pretty exhaustively, IMO.

[cocodrilo]

Is this news?

No. It's now part of the American Way, like, say, torture, buying politicians, and prosecuting only small-time criminals and not big operators (otherwise known as CEOs).

[gator996]

We can count on U.S. intelligence in deciding to execute. Didn't it do a good job on the WMDs in Iraq?


The future of warfare is changing...

One way is that it will not be nation states vs nation states

And when you're fighting a "terrorist" group that group may well have members
from your country.

Now, I agree that the memo is very sketchy in terms of what conditions can warrant a drone strike on an American overseas but I don't remember too many people being bothered when the drones hit Anwar al-Awlaki...

[cocodrilo]

I don't remember too many people being bothered when the drones hit Anwar al-Awlaki...

Do you recall how many people died with him? Women, children? There is usually "collateral damage."

[gator996]

Do you recall how many people died with him? Women, children? There is usually "collateral damage."

Yes, I agree these attacks are far from surgical...

Asymetric warfare is going to be the dominant form of fighting that we need to align our future military for...

That means the frontline is going to move closer or within civilian populations

[oaklandroadie]

Remember when liberals used to oppose actions like this? You know, before the President authorizing this type of action was from their party.

[cocodrilo]

Yes, I agree these attacks are far from surgical...


That's the nice thing about being CIC and the military (or perhaps I should say, on the matter of drones, the CIA, which is supposed to be an information-gathering agency). You get to play God on who all gets it, no conscience required (in fact, a lack of one is required).

[Dreamliner]

This will keep us safe!

[gatorev12]

We can count on U.S. intelligence in deciding to execute. Didn't it do a good job on the WMDs in Iraq?

Perhaps you might have a plausible reason why an American citizen would be associating with known terrorists and chumming it up with them in the tourist hotspots of Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, or Afghanistan?

[cocodrilo]

Perhaps you might have a plausible reason why an American citizen would be associating with known terrorists and chumming it up with them in the tourist hotspots of Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, or Afghanistan?

Maybe because he was a terrorist. Perhaps you might have a plausible reason why we should believe that U.S. intelligence will be so correct and proficient in every case as to justify blowing a dozen or so people away.

[108]

the police drone state has come to us via our elected officials who made some nice campaign loot from the drone industry

"we the corporation"

but hey, don't protest the corporate takeover of our country, or you'll get maced, beaten, and thrown in jail....with one half of the political party's calling you dirty hippies and freeloaders, trying to undermine any push against it

just awesome!!!!!

[gatorev12]

Maybe because he was a terrorist.


Gasp! Who would have thought? A person hanging out and acting chummy with known terrorists is more likely than not: a terrorist. Regardless of what their passport is.


Perhaps you might have a plausible reason why we should believe that U.S. intelligence will be so correct and proficient in every case as to justify blowing a dozen or so people away.


It's impossible to be 100% accurate every time. In any job or in any decision.

And our drone policy isn't just "a hope and a prayer" we're right. There have to be a couple of different indicators prior to any strike being approved. Including bending over backward to make sure civilians aren't around. Accidents still happen, obviously, but as much (if not more) blame should be attached to the terrorists who deliberately hide behind women and children, daring us to target them anyway.

[GatorAvatar]

So we already killed American terrorists abroad and we now want to kill them in the USA. Liberals have been criticizing Obama on this for over three years now. Nothing new here.

[gator996]

I haven't looked at the memo yet...

Doesn't it pertain to Americans overseas?

[gatorev12]

Asymetric warfare is going to be the dominant form of fighting that we need to align our future military for...


In my own humble opinion, the increasing prevalence of ever-sophisticated drones could easily reduce the "cost of war" to where nation-states become far more aggressive in their dealings.

The main historical deterrent to war has been 1.) high human cost (ie: body bags) and 2.) high capital cost. Largely eliminating the human costs with cheap, robotic drones that do the fighting (you can build 10 or more stealthy drones for the cost of 1 5th generation fighter) can reduce the "cost of war" calculus for different nation-states--up to and including our own. I don't see that as a promising development, by any means.

[rivergator]

Wow. This is scary stuff and sorry you libs out there, this article came from your own media's mouths. So you can't say it's from "Faux News" so it's fabricated.

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite



That means anyone is fair game to the Obama administration, even those that are deemed rivals. If I were Rush, Hannity, Trump, and any other "right-wing extremist", I'd be concerned. Militia groups should be on the lookout. Now you know why we need assault rifles.....no way you can shoot down these things with a hunting rifle (although not much chance with anything else).

apparently you suspect Rush and Hannity of being senior leaders of Al Qaeda. I'm curious if you have any evidence to back that up.

[gator996]

In my own humble opinion, the increasing prevalence of ever-sophisticated drones could easily reduce the "cost of war" to where nation-states become far more aggressive in their dealings.

The main historical deterrent to war has been 1.) high human cost (ie: body bags) and 2.) high capital cost. Largely eliminating the human costs with cheap, robotic drones that do the fighting (you can build 10 or more stealthy drones for the cost of 1 5th generation fighter) can reduce the "cost of war" calculus for different nation-states--up to and including our own. I don't see that as a promising development, by any means.


Never said it was promising...

I agree with your points.

[DeanMeadGator]

This is the exact same kind of memo that folks in the Bush administration gave themselves the OK to have "enhanced interrogation techniques" with.
There's something wrong with a system where the government can make these kinds of decisions through a secret process, execute them through clandestine activity, without them ever seeing the light of day. Something isn't legal because an official says it is, it's legal because a court says it is.
Just one more example of post 9/11 hysteria eroding the bedrocks of our system.

I think it's even worse, because anyone can be killed at the discretion of a government official. Had the Bush administration done this, the press would have gone berserk.

What explanation is there for the abrogation of Obama's insistence on the right to trial by jury, right to due process, etc.? Did not Obama slam Bush over enhanced interrogation, "wire tapping," etc. Were there not threats to bring legal action against those in the Bush administration who participated in "enhanced interrogation"?

Now Bush will be responsible for Obama's killings based on the decision of a government official.

Note: Outrage reserved for conservatives.

[The_Graygator]

Start attacking Americans it will be the downfall of the US Government... I do not believe any of this, there are more gun owners outside the military than within. If they want to see society fall, if they want to watch police die, firefighters, EMT's, etc... etc.... Then they will start attacking Americans, which I do not believe the the people will stand for. It will be the straw that breaks the camels back. I also personally believe if they asked military personnel to attack the citizens of the United States, 1/8 of them actually would, the other half would turn around and fire back at them instead.

I fully believe the article that the OA thinks it's has a right to attack American citizens with drones, but would it really happen?

Does anyone here honestly believe, considering the military's overall disdain for Obama, that if military personnel were ordered to use a drone on American citizens that they'd actually do it? If they did, you'd have a civil war on your hands.

Just imagine if Obama ordered them to strike a target in or near their home town?

Just like with the military. Imagine if Obama declared "all guns must be confiscated" (something I WANT him try IMO). There is no way the military or the National Guard is going to go out and hold American citizens at gunpoint and demnd they give up their guns. There's no way they'd start shooting on their friends and families and loved ones.

My guess if Obama tried that, the military itself would drag Obama out of the WH and place him under arrest for treason, and Obama knows this.

He knows the military hates him and he can't rely on them for something like that. It's why he'll never be able to take away anyone's guns in this country.

[gator996]

I think it's even worse, because anyone can be killed at the discretion of a government official. Had the Bush administration done this, the press would have gone berserk.

What explanation is there for the abrogation of Obama's insistence on the right to trial by jury, right to due process, etc.? Did not Obama slam Bush over enhanced interrogation, "wire tapping," etc. Were there not threats to bring legal action against those in the Bush administration who participated in "enhanced interrogation"?

Now Bush will be responsible for Obama's killings based on the decision of a government official.

Note: Outrage reserved for conservatives.


We can't kill a treasonist on the field of battle before a trial?

[egator1245]

We can't kill a treasonist on the field of battle before a trial?

Field of battle while fighting is one thing, but these have often been in someone's house.

[gator996]

The field of battle for Al-Qaeda leadership increasingly is in civilian neighborhoods...

OBL was in a house.... not in the caves of Afghanistan.

[exiledgator]

Field of battle while fighting is one thing, but these have often been in someone's house.

Sitting in a house coordinating attacks, or making bombs, or recruiting suicide bombers IS the field of battle. Or are we to wait until they are about to self-detonate?

[gatorev12]

Never said it was promising...

I agree with your points.

Never thought you were implying that.

It's probably worthy of it's own thread--don't want to side-track this one too much. But suffice it to say, given mankind's history with any advanced new weaponry that, on surface level, gives one group an advantage over another--well, it tends to be used more often than not. And glad we agree that isn't a great development for world affairs or humanity.

[JerseyGator01]

Such a coincidence that this is leaked to the media after 500,000 attend the Roe rally in DC and this administration's tendency to label pro-lifers as terrorists.

Liberal logic:

Bombing = good

Torture = bad.

[GatorAvatar]

So let's say we spot Adam Gadan (sp?) an American-turned AQ member in Pakistan possibly plotting an attack. Should we torch him or not? Remember, he is an American.

[bluelang]

What is all this weird "American Citizens" stuff? The government can do anything short of what is forbidden by the constitution to "American Citizens." Just about every single tool the police use today was invented for a war somewhere.

[Row6]

In my own humble opinion, the increasing prevalence of ever-sophisticated drones could easily reduce the "cost of war" to where nation-states become far more aggressive in their dealings.

The main historical deterrent to war has been 1.) high human cost (ie: body bags) and 2.) high capital cost. Largely eliminating the human costs with cheap, robotic drones that do the fighting (you can build 10 or more stealthy drones for the cost of 1 5th generation fighter) can reduce the "cost of war" calculus for different nation-states--up to and including our own. I don't see that as a promising development, by any means.

Good point. How difficult will it be in the future for less powerful nations - or groups - to employ drones? Is this technology something only the more advanced can afford and employ - or not?

[Row6]

The memo exposes the legal machinations behind a policy which we all know already existed. It's not really something new in that sense. It's a difficult issue, but I am in agreement with present policy, though I would want judicial review of some kind. Battlefield parallels seem convincing to me.

Comparisons to torture policy are not equivalent IMO, as there are many other ways to skin that cat that are now determined to be more effective, they can impact how other nations may treat our troops if captured, and degrade whatever - admittedly weak - international standards we have been instrumental in building up over the last century.

[fredsanford]

Wow. This is scary stuff and sorry you libs out there, this article came from your own media's mouths. So you can't say it's from "Faux News" so it's fabricated.

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite



That means anyone is fair game to the Obama administration, even those that are deemed rivals. If I were Rush, Hannity, Trump, and any other "right-wing extremist", I'd be concerned. Militia groups should be on the lookout. Now you know why we need assault rifles.....no way you can shoot down these things with a hunting rifle (although not much chance with anything else).

So Rush and Hannity are "senior operational leaders of Al Qaida?" I mean, that makes sense, but who knew?

[MichiGator2002]

So Rush and Hannity are "senior operational leaders of Al Qaida?" I mean, that makes sense, but who knew?

You are silly. Once you have turned the answer from "is there any context in which warrantless, extrajudicial summary execution of American citizens in the US is allowed?" from a NO to a YES, that crosses the Rubicon. Who will care long term if the original rationale was al Qaeda? After all, Obama says they are broken and scattered anyway.

[fredsanford]

You are silly. Once you have turned the answer from "is there any context in which warrantless, extrajudicial summary execution of American citizens in the US is allowed?" from a NO to a YES, that crosses the Rubicon. Who will care long term if the original rationale was al Qaeda? After all, Obama says they are broken and scattered anyway.

Yes, I am.

Here's the difference between a liberal and a con: I find all of these transgressions against civil liberties in the name of security appalling.

I warned all the cons here you wouldn't like this stuff when it wasn't Bush doing it any more. You all just laughed and laughed...

[MichiGator2002]

Yes, I am.

Here's the difference between a liberal and a con: I find all of these transgressions against civil liberties in the name of security appalling.

I warned all the cons here you wouldn't like this stuff when it wasn't Bush doing it any more. You all just laughed and laughed...

Still laughing, because where is the Bush in this? For that matter, the self respect? Is Obama basically excused any entirely novel transgression (like this) in advance now because Bush? does the pathos run that deep?

[fredsanford]

Still laughing, because where is the Bush in this? For that matter, the self respect? Is Obama basically excused any entirely novel transgression (like this) in advance now because Bush? does the pathos run that deep?

Sorry. I tend to forget the pervasive mind wiping of all cons that occurred in 2009 erasing all memory of the previous 8 years.

Bush and company started us down this road of trading civil libs for security after 9/11. Patriot Act, NSA wiretapping, etc.

Once we started down that road, we were never going back.

[MichiGator2002]

Rich from the guy who was just sniffing his nose at "the old slippery slope". Droneapalooza... Bush or Obama?

[Row6]

Those on the right are outraged not by the already known policy, but by perceived hypocrisy, while of course doing their best to practice their own. I wholeheartedly endorse the use of drones - which can mitigate the gross "collateral damage" seen in wars like in Iraq (over 100,000 dead by conservative estimates). I also endorse killing known dangerous and treasonous Americans on foreign soil by this or other means. In the old days they would be shot on the battlefield. I'd like some kind of judicial review.

[rivergator]

First of all, the gap between taking out an American citizen who's gone to Afghanistan to become a leader in Al Qaeda and taking out an American citizen because he criticizes the president on talk radio or TV. I think most people realize that.
That said, there needs to be some kind of due process. If not a full trial, Congress needs to establish some procedure beyond a couple of guys in DC deciding to take the guy out.

[JerseyGator01]

Obama = Neocon of the century. All hail!

[gatorev12]

First of all, the gap between taking out an American citizen who's gone to Afghanistan to become a leader in Al Qaeda and taking out an American citizen because he criticizes the president on talk radio or TV. I think most people realize that.
That said, there needs to be some kind of due process. If not a full trial, Congress needs to establish some procedure beyond a couple of guys in DC deciding to take the guy out.

There already are procedures in place prior to any airstrike or drone strike on a target.

...are you arguing for extra procedures to be added to clarify if one of the targets may or may not be American? Just curious.

[rivergator]

There already are procedures in place prior to any airstrike or drone strike on a target.

...are you arguing for extra procedures to be added to clarify if one of the targets may or may not be American? Just curious.

This is about targeting American citizens, not just sending a drone into an Al Qaeda hideout and one of the casualties being an American who just happened to be there.

[rivergator]

Daily Show:

<div style="background-color:#000000;width:520px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><iframe src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:423587" width="512" height="288" frameborder="0"></iframe><p style="text-align:left;background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><b><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-6-2013/skygall---drone-strike-details">The Daily Show with Jon Stewart</a></b><br/>Get More: <a href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>,<a href='http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow'>The Daily Show on Facebook</a></p></div></div>

[DaveFla]

So, Jon Stewart and The Daily Show are now back to respected news programming?

I'd really like to know because the status seems to change frequently...

[gatorman_07732]

So, Jon Stewart and The Daily Show are now back to respected news programming?

I'd really like to know because the status seems to change frequently...

Jon Stewart is respected news programming to those in here that complain about fox news. You know, the same people that use George Soros funded sources to try to prove a point. it's an amazing world we live in.

[rivergator]

So, Jon Stewart and The Daily Show are now back to respected news programming?

I'd really like to know because the status seems to change frequently...

you're the one who seems obsessed by what category it falls into. I thought it was an interesting commentary about the documents.

[DaveFla]

Obsessed? No... Obsession would be constantly posting a link to a site which has been proven, over and over again, nothing but a leftist funded anti-conservative news site. My response was, and always has been in response to someone posting a link to Stewart as if he is a credible news source...

So, which is it today? Shall we consider Stewart a credible source today? If so, for how long is his source to be considered valid?

[rivergator]

Obsessed? No... Obsession would be constantly posting a link to a site which has been proven, over and over again, nothing but a leftist funded anti-conservative news site. My response was, and always has been in response to someone posting a link to Stewart as if he is a credible news source...

So, which is it today? Shall we consider Stewart a credible source today? If so, for how long is his source to be considered valid?

Dave, you're not going to consider anything outside your little predetermined bubble, so explaining it to you is pointless.
By the way, that "leftist funded anticonservative news site" is very critical of Obama on this issue.

watch it or not.

[cocodrilo]

Let's take the drone program down to its lowest common denominator. The program is run by the CIA (Centrally Involved Assassins), correct? The prez gives final approval on rubbing out some target American over there, based on the CIA's recommendation, but it's the CIA that gets to chalk up the kill. (I mean kills, there being of course "collateral damage.")

So the question is simply this: Do you trust the CIA? Is the word of an organization of professional liars and assassins good enough for you? I sure as hell don't trust it, based entirely on its ignominious record. And any president who murders an American (and any and all those around him) based not on due process but on the recommendation of the CIA should be impeached. Instead, this president jokes about attacking critics with drones in a comedy routine for the press and gets big laughs.

[The_Graygator]

What's amazing is that Obama has already signed an executive order giving him the power (or, giving himself the power), to have any American citizen suspected of being a threat to national security arrested, with or without proof, and have them held anywhere, indefinitely, without legal representation.

Now he wants drone strike authority too?

Obama should be impeached, because if Bush has tried what Obama has already done, the liberal left would be calling for his impeachment every day.

[fredsanford]

What's amazing is that Obama has already signed an executive order giving him the power (or, giving himself the power), to have any American citizen suspected of being a threat to national security arrested, with or without proof, and have them held anywhere, indefinitely, without legal representation.

Now he wants drone strike authority too?

Obama should be impeached, because if Bush has tried what Obama has already done, the liberal left would be calling for his impeachment every day.

LOL. Of course he should.

You should have spoken up when Bush opened this door instead of just laughing about Freedom Fries.

[Row6]

Judicial review should be required before targeting, but I have no problem with getting Alawaki. Regrettable collateral damage is probably less using drones than sending troops.

[DaveFla]

Judicial review should be required before targeting, but I have no problem with getting Alawaki. Regrettable collateral damage is probably less using drones than sending troops.

Waterboarding = UNACCEPTABLE

Blowing the human being, and all those who are unfortunate enough to be near him, into smithereens = ACCEPTABLE

my got the mind of your average liberal sure seems contradictory...

[gatorman_07732]

Judicial review should be required before targeting, but I have no problem with getting Alawaki. Regrettable collateral damage is probably less using drones than sending troops.

Judicial review? What the hell are you talking about? There is only one person and one person only that can authorized a strike and that is the president.

[cocodrilo]

There is only one person and one person only that can authorized a strike and that is the president.

And that depends on how much the CIA has on him. (On the president, not the target.)

[RealGatorFan]

Remember when liberals used to oppose actions like this? You know, before the President authorizing this type of action was from their party.

Read that doc again. Did Bush authorize this on American shores? No he did not. This new document gives the go-ahead to use drones in our own back yards. As long as you do as you are told, you have nothing to worry about.

[g8trjax]

Waterboarding = UNACCEPTABLE

Blowing the human being, and all those who are unfortunate enough to be near him, into smithereens = ACCEPTABLE

my got the mind of your average liberal sure seems contradictory...



What you need to remember is lib dems are intellectually incapable of making a mistake. Just leave it in their hands. I promise, you will sleep better tonight.

[DaveFla]

That's fine... It's the silence of the press that concerns me.

Bush could do no right... Obama can do no wrong. Pretty soon, even Obama will think he can get away with anything, knowing the press won't question him.

[JerseyGator01]

Tina Brown of Newsweek stated Bush would have been impeached by now if this happened under his watch. The double standard continues ...

[rivergator]

That's fine... It's the silence of the press that concerns me.

Bush could do no right... Obama can do no wrong. Pretty soon, even Obama will think he can get away with anything, knowing the press won't question him.

didn't NBC break the story?

[DaveFla]

didn't NBC break the story?

I don't know, did they? It's hard to tell since they dropped so quickly. Had this occurred under Bush, we ALL know it would be on the front page, and the lead story every hour in the press.

In fact, the waterboarding story WAS front page news for weeks and weeks, and this is potentially MUCH worse than water boarding. Yet, the press seems mysteriously quiet.

[vertigo0923]

Is this "much worse" than holding people without trial in secret prisons all over the world?

[DaveFla]

Is this "much worse" than holding people without trial in secret prisons all over the world?

Alive versus blown into 1,000,000 pieces along with a dozen or so innocent people?

Hell yes, it's MUCH worse...

[rivergator]

I don't know, did they? It's hard to tell since they dropped so quickly.


I can't help you if you don't read the thread or the story that started it.

Had this occurred under Bush, we ALL know it would be on the front page, and the lead story every hour in the press.

In fact, the waterboarding story WAS front page news for weeks and weeks, and this is potentially MUCH worse than water boarding. Yet, the press seems mysteriously quiet.

yeah, but bush, yeah but bush ....

[vertigo0923]

Since nameless people were held prisoner in an unknown quantity and some were tortured, Dave, how do you know they all lived to tell the story, huh?

[vertigo0923]

Also, about the "but bush" thing. He was the most recent republican president, therefore, his admin is still up for discussion, same way we were still hearing about bill clinton during the bush admins time in office, and for real, next time there's a republican in office, you guys will still be talking about the previous Dem admin. And you know it.

[cocodrilo]

Has there ever been a president that we can't blame something on?

How about George Washington? The worst I've heard about him was when he shoved the family outhouse into the river when he was a kid. His daddy gave him a spanking. George said, "But Daddy, you didn't spank me when I chopped down the cherry tree." His daddy said, "I wasn't in the cherry tree."

[GatorAvatar]

Bush started using drones in 2002. He killed Americans in foreign countries but no-one knew about it. Why is this a big deal now? Cause the black guy is doing it?

[LittleBlueLW]

Bush started using drones in 2002. He killed Americans in foreign countries but no-one knew about it. Why is this a big deal now? Cause the black guy is doing it?

I searched for documentation of Americans killed by drones under Bush and found none. The Yemeni strike under BO keeps popping up. Apparently you are the only one with this info?

Do you have a link supporting your above claim?

[DaveFla]

Bush started using drones in 2002. He killed Americans in foreign countries but no-one knew about it. Why is this a big deal now? Cause the black guy is doing it?

I have no problem with Obama doing it. It's the hypocrisy of those like you who bitched about Bush using drones to take out terrorists "without due process" yet find no problem with Obama's "kill list" and authorizing the killing of Americans.

I mean, how can you possibly justify your blatent double standard?

[Row6]

Waterboarding = UNACCEPTABLE

Blowing the human being, and all those who are unfortunate enough to be near him, into smithereens = ACCEPTABLE

my got the mind of your average liberal sure seems contradictory...

Beginning with the Third Geneva Conference in 1929 and continuing through several other international agreements to which the US is a signor, killing hundreds of thousands of people in times of war is acceptable under the Geneva Accords. Torturing captured combatants is not.

[Row6]

Judicial review? What the hell are you talking about? There is only one person and one person only that can authorized a strike and that is the president.

Extend FISA-like procedures.

[gatorman_07732]

Extend FISA-like procedures.

I hope your aware that the government can execute Electronic surveillance without a court order. Have a court involved in war procedures is pretty dumb and unconstitutional.

[cocodrilo]

This colonel calls us the land of the constrained and the home of the cowardly.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/09/ex-gitmo-prosecutor-slams-drone-policy-since-911-weve-been-the-constrained-and-the-cowardly/

[GatorAvatar]

I searched for documentation of Americans killed by drones under Bush and found none. The Yemeni strike under BO keeps popping up. Apparently you are the only one with this info?

Do you have a link supporting your above claim?

Because Obama publicized it and Bush did it quietly. And for the record, I supported Bush when he did it and I support Obama when he does it. Terrorists have no rights in my book. Screw terrorists, American-born or otherwise.

[DaveFla]

Because Obama publicized it and Bush did it quietly. And for the record, I supported Bush when he did it and I support Obama when he does it. Terrorists have no rights in my book. Screw terrorists, American-born or otherwise.

You've GOT to be kidding me... That has been going on since Obama took office, and only now is it being brought out in the public.

I applaud your audacity to admit that you didn't criticize Bush when he did it. Perhaps there is a liberal non-hypocrite out there, although I don't 100% believe this to be the case.

[GatorAvatar]

You've GOT to be kidding me... That has been going on since Obama took office, and only now is it being brought out in the public.

I applaud your audacity to admit that you didn't criticize Bush when he did it. Perhaps there is a liberal non-hypocrite out there, although I don't 100% believe this to be the case.

LOL...you didn't know that Brennan talked openly about drone strikes for years now? You didn't know we took out the Yemen based American-born terrorist with a drone last year/or the year before? You didn't know that Obama has authorized 4times as more drone strikes in his first term than Bush did in his entire term? Have you been living under a rock?

[Row6]

LOL...you didn't know that Brennan talked openly about drone strikes for years now? You didn't know we took out the Yemen based American-born terrorist with a drone last year/or the year before? You didn't know that Obama has authorized 4times as more drone strikes in his first term than Bush did in his entire term? Have you been living under a rock?

Correct. There is nothing new or unknown about the policy. The memo is what is new and I don't think it contains anything we couldn't already have reasonably assumed was administration policy.

[Row6]

Gates on drones:

"WASHINGTON -- Former Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Sunday said there should be an outside check on the power of a president to order drone strikes on U.S. citizens.

Gates, a former CIA director who served as Defense chief under Presidents Obama and George W. Bush, said decisions to execute Americans should be subject to some outside review, perhaps by a panel of judges or by Congress.

“I think that the rules and the practices that the Obama administration has followed are quite stringent and are not being abused,” said Gates, speaking with Candy Crowley on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “But who is to say about a future president?”...

Gates also said that he was a “big advocate” of drones, explaining they are more precise than other weapons.

“You're not saying that innocent people do not die,” Crowley said.

“No, but I'm saying that you have, first of all, the numbers, I believe, are extremely small,” Gates replied. “And second, you do have the ability to limit that collateral damage more than with any other weapons system that you have.”"

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-drone-strikes-americans-review-robert-gates-20130210,0,2603983.story

[DaveFla]

Both of you. Go back and re-read the title of this thread. If you are still having difficulty seeing the difference, then let me know. I will do my best to help you with your comprehension difficulties.

[LittleBlueLW]

Because Obama publicized it and Bush did it quietly. And for the record, I supported Bush when he did it and I support Obama when he does it. Terrorists have no rights in my book. Screw terrorists, American-born or otherwise.

Thats great that you feel that way but where did you you get the intel that Bush killed American citizens with drones?

[cocodrilo]

“You're not saying that innocent people do not die,” Crowley said.

“No, but I'm saying that you have, first of all, the numbers, I believe, are extremely small,” Gates replied. “And second, you do have the ability to limit that collateral damage more than with any other weapons system that you have.”

Man, I tell you, there's nothing like playing God. In this case, innocent human lives lost in drone attacks are just "numbers," and they are "extremely small."

So waste 'em, because it might - might, I want to stress the word might - save lives (suddenly more important than "numbers") somewhere else at some future time.

[Lawdog88]

Message to prospective collaterally damaged: Don't hang with avowed terrorists.

[Juggernautz]

Keep your noses clean, all!!

[cocodrilo]

Message to prospective collaterally damaged: Don't hang with avowed terrorists.

What if the terrorists are hanging around next door? What are you going to do, call the cops? Borrow some money to move? Nah, just wait for the drone to put you out of your misery. After all, the CIA knows best, as it has proven over and over.

[gatorev12]

What if the terrorists are hanging around next door? What are you going to do, call the cops? Borrow some money to move? Nah, just wait for the drone to put you out of your misery. After all, the CIA knows best, as it has proven over and over.

Would you agree that the lion's share of responsibility for such deaths properly belongs with the terrorists themselves--who either intentionally or negligently decided to place said innocent civilians in harm's way?

[cocodrilo]

Would you agree that the lion's share of responsibility for such deaths properly belongs with the terrorists themselves--who either intentionally or negligently decided to place said innocent civilians in harm's way?

No, your logic completely eludes me. The lion's share of responsibility for deaths by drones properly belongs to the people who send the drones.

[gatorev12]

No, your logic completely eludes me. The lion's share of responsibility for deaths by drones properly belongs to the people who send the drones.

Do you place ANY degree of responsibility on the terrorists themselves for deliberately or negligently placing civilians at risk by carrying out their activities in close proximity to them?

[cocodrilo]

Do you place ANY degree of responsibility on the terrorists themselves for deliberately or negligently placing civilians at risk by carrying out their activities in close proximity to them?

The question is moot. Are they all terrorists? They are terrorists according to the CIA, a criminal organization of liars and killers. And don't forget that the U.S. government always needs bogeymen for its operations, whether it's a lone nut like Oswald for its assassinations or a terrorist like Bin Laden for its wars. The CIA is very adept at producing fake videos, fake audios, and fake people. When it's a good time to blow away some "terrorist" and others with a drone, they will of course do it.

The CIA has zero credibility since, like all liars, you never know when it's lying. The president may believe the CIA and say "go ahead" because he's a puppet and like all presidents he's rightly afraid of it. You and others here are free to put faith in the CIA as you obviously do. Truman regretted ever creating this Frankenstein's monster, the U.S. has more than a dozen other intelligence agencies to provide it with intelligence, and the CIA should have been disbanded long ago before it became too powerful to be held accountable by anyone on Earth.

[Lawdog88]

What if the terrorists are hanging around next door? What are you going to do, call the cops? Borrow some money to move? Nah, just wait for the drone to put you out of your misery. After all, the CIA knows best, as it has proven over and over.


I think we are talking overseas.

You believe that the policy also applies on U.S. soil ?

[cocodrilo]

I think we are talking overseas.

You believe that the policy also applies on U.S. soil ?

Yes, we're talking overseas.

Do you think some poor ragtag family in some God-forsaken village is going to get some law enforcement (assuming there is any) to come remove some terrorists camping next door? Do you think any cops would show up? Do you think such a family would dare to do anything?

As for the policy applying on U.S. soil, what's to prevent it? A drone would have done a much more efficient job at Waco than all those federal agents did. (Was Koresh a terrorist? Sure, if Janet Reno and the rest of the gang said he was. Of course that was in a different time. Today drones may be the future.)

[Lawdog88]

Yes, we're talking overseas.

Do you think some poor ragtag family in some God-forsaken village is going to get some law enforcement (assuming there is any) to come remove some terrorists camping next door? Do you think such a family would dare to do anything?

As for the policy applying on U.S. soil, what's to prevent it? A drone would have done a much more efficient job at Waco than all those federal agents did. (Was Koresh a terrorist? Sure, if Janet Reno and the rest of the gang said he was. Of course that was in a different time. Today drones may be the future.)


I thought your example about neighbors meant on U.S. soil.

My collateral oversight, and do carry on.

[gatorev12]

The question is moot.

No...no it's not. IF you truly care about the innocent lives being lost, then it's a very important question.

IF all you're wanting to do is rant about the CIA and how evil it is while not giving a damn about innocent deaths (as I strongly suspect), then of course this question is moot. Innocent lives aren't what you're concerned about in the slightest--you're just using it as a pretext. Carry on if that's the case.

[cocodrilo]

No...no it's not. IF you truly care about the innocent lives being lost, then it's a very important question.

IF all you're wanting to do is rant about the CIA and how evil it is while not giving a damn about innocent deaths (as I strongly suspect), then of course this question is moot. Innocent lives aren't what you're concerned about in the slightest--you're just using it as a pretext. Carry on if that's the case.

I will bite my tongue here, or bite my keyboard as it were. Let me simply say, God damn me if I ever respond to another post of yours.

[gatorev12]

I will bite my tongue here, or bite my keyboard as it were. Let me simply say, God damn me if I ever respond to another post of yours.

You're free to do as you wish...and apologies if you're uncomfortable or unable to deal with the reality I pointed out: terrorists deliberately choose to operate in and out of civilian areas for a reason. It's a reason you're apparently all-too willing to bury your head in the sand about to rant about what you'd rather be ranting about. Which is fine--but don't use the pretext of caring about civilians in order to engage in such activities.

[Dreamliner]

Given the government's war on obesity, and given that obese people make bigger targets, they need to watch the skies.

[cocodrilo]

Given the government's war on obesity, and given that obese people make bigger targets, they need to watch the skies.

Cui bono? Obese people can have trouble getting around. Much less likely to go to the polls. Why waste drones on non-voters? OTOH it could be a good way to get rid of innocent voters in the vicinity, depending on the demographics.

[GatorAvatar]

Given the government's war on obesity, and given that obese people make bigger targets, they need to watch the skies.

I guess you will not be happy until we all look like Gov Christie. Not to worry, your wish might become reality soon. We are getting there.

[cocodrilo]

Good article on Obama pushing gun control at home and killing people abroad.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/11/barack-obama-is-pushing-gun-control-at-home-but-hes-a-killer-abroad/


According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, between 2004 and 2013 drone strikes have killed up to 893 civilians (including 176 children) in Pakistan, 178 civilians (including 37 children) in Yemen, and 57 civilians (including three children) in Somalia (while these started under Bush they were accelerated under Obama). According to the New York Times, his ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron Munter, complained to colleagues that “he didn’t realise his main job was to kill people”, a colleague said.

[RealGatorFan]

I think we are talking overseas.

You believe that the policy also applies on U.S. soil ?

The memo indicated:

A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.

Although the assumption is based on foreign attacks on US soil, what is "an associated force"? Is that anyone that is deemed a terrorist even those that might be a Militia? If so, than wouldn't the use of drones be used against them even on US soil? There's already tons of proof we carry out drone surveilance here in the US so why not go the next step?

[DSRrg]

The memo indicated:

A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.

Although the assumption is based on foreign attacks on US soil, what is "an associated force"? Is that anyone that is deemed a terrorist even those that might be a Militia? If so, than wouldn't the use of drones be used against them even on US soil? There's already tons of proof we carry out drone surveilance here in the US so why not go the next step?

If one round of any caliber leaves the wing of a drone on American soil then that is a game changer. People will be going crazy over that.

[rivergator]

If one round of any caliber leaves the wing of a drone on American soil then that is a game changer. People will be going crazy over that.

why, yes, I think you're right. If Obama orders drones to open fire on American soil, Americans would probably be very upset.

[DSRrg]

CNN thinks it might be time to use drones on Americans here at home...

http://m.guardiannews.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/11/chris-dorner-drones-lapd

[rivergator]

CNN thinks it might be time to use drones on Americans here at home...

http://m.guardiannews.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/11/chris-dorner-drones-lapd

Actually, it appears that Erin Burnett of CNN asked if we should, not said that we should. And the writer of the piece you linked to, Glenn Greenwald, wrote this:

Here's my question: if the surveillance drones detect his location, should the lives of law enforcement agents be risked, along with other civilians, in an attempt to apprehend this highly-trained warrior? Why shouldn't an armed drone instead be immediately dispatched once his location is ascertained and simply kill him?.

And that's the question. If police corner this guy on a mountain, but can't physically get to him, is it OK to take him out with a sniper, but not a drone?

[DSRrg]

Actually, it appears that Erin Burnett of CNN asked if we should, not said that we should. And the writer of the piece you linked to, Glenn Greenwald, wrote this:

.

And that's the question. If police corner this guy on a mountain, but can't physically get to him, is it OK to take him out with a sniper, but not a drone?

If you can't physically get him on a mountain how could you positively ID him? Doesn't he have a right to a trial? Or do they do like the FBI did to Vicki Weaver at Ruby Ridge and shoot her in the face while she is holding her infant? Just some questions....

Drones should not be in out skies at all.