Few people seem to give a shit about this but me. And this indifference also seems to be bipartisan in that few liberals or conservatives have objected and when confronted with me calling it murder…pure and simple…they almost in unison cry that “these are terrorists who want to kill us!”
Bullshit. And the reason no one mentioned it in the recent presidential campaign, and the reason I voted for Obama anyways, is that any Republican President would have continued the program, if not expanded it. Not that Rick Perry had a rat’s ass chance of becoming CINC, but, if he had, just look at his record in Texas vis a vis executions and you know he would be salivating at the chance to kill without having to bother with those pesky things called courts.
But this is shameful for our nation and, unlike the bogus complaints of Obama going on an apology tour, this is real, very fucking real.
More has just been revealed about the supposedly brilliant legal reasoning justifying these attacks on uncharged, unindicted people alleged to be terrorists and who at the moment they were killed were not proveably committing any act of terror…actually criminality…against Americans. And these so-called terrorists…actually just basic criminals, if you will… include American citizens.
Read this for details. http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite
Now this topic is creating some stir in the halls of Congress, but somehow it is merely a stir, not an outrage. Note this from the story.
On Monday, a bipartisan group of 11 senators — led by Democrat Ron Wyden of Oregon — wrote a letter to President Barack Obama asking him to release all Justice Department memos on the subject. While accepting that “there will clearly be circumstances in which the president has the authority to use lethal force” against Americans who take up arms against the country, it said, “It is vitally important … for Congress and the American public to have a full understanding of how the executive branch interprets the limits and boundaries of this authority.”
Really? Oh Really? And just what circumstances are these? Could the President use such lethal force if the Americans were doing the same things in Peoria that they are in Pakistan? There is no law, absolutely none, that would permit the use of lethal force against someone planning some attack or CRIME as opposed to carrying it out with potentially deadly force of their own that grants law enforcement the power to use deadly force to protect themselves or others in danger nearby.
So tell me how in the world can they do it 10,000 miles away?
But, you all will sit on your asses and just cry about how terrorists have wantonly murdered our citizens and deserve what they get and who the hell cares anyways?
But just ask yourself this. If authorities had somehow gained knowledge ahead of time that Adam Lanza was prepared to commit mass slaughter at Sandy Hook Elementary School, but was walking down the street unarmed and nowhere near the school, would it have been legal to send a drone to assassinate him?
If what Adam Lanza did was not an act of terror I do not know what is.
Umoc193's Blog 
Comments
Glad to learn you haven’t been droned. Knowing you (I really don’t), my guess is you relish and take pride in “being alone”. You didn’t directly answer my hypothetical so here is another one.
My brothers are engaged in a firefight in the hills of Afghanistan and call in a drone strike. Acceptable? Any different than calling in a close support jet?
Can you not distinguish between terrorists on our soil (who have been captured and tried) and those operating in foreign countries whose chance of capture is de minimus?
Killing it is, murder it isn’t. Haven’t thousands of “criminals” on U.S. soil been “murdered/killed without “due process”, such as in firefights. You don’t have a drone problem-you have an Afghanistan problem that clouds your reasoning.
Have a good day!
Sent from my iPad
I believe I have been sufficiantly clear that my objection to the drone strikes is based on the ones seeking out noncombatants. Use of them such as you described in Afghanistan where troops are actively engaged is a different matter altogether. I’m not decrying the technology, just the facilitation of murder by it.
You do not seem to be able to separate those who are “face-to-face” with the troops from noncombatants who may or may not be plotting criminal acts but in no way have been even charged with these crimes. Frankly I don’t believe this should be done regardless of nationality but if limiting my appall to killing only American citizens brings you more in alignmnent with my views, go for it.
By the way, I do not have an Afghanistan problem…the nation has an Afghanistan problem. Our troops are merely doing what they are assigned to do. They are also victims.
Did u get my comment. I’m not sure I sent in in the correct way
Glad to learn your absence from the blog was not due to your being droned. And congrats on being in a distinct minority, a position that you not only don’t fear but one you actually embrace.
Apparently, you can’t distinguish between “criminals” conducting terrorist acts on our soil and criminals in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Those on our soil who can be identified and located on our soil are captured and tried unless, of course, they don’t give up and may be mowed down in a gunfight, without being given due process I might add. That holds true even for Islamist terrorists.
So, let’s say we are engaged in a gunfight in Afghanistan and Marine jet jockeys are called in for close air support. Okay in your world? How about if the flyboys are not available but there is a drone on station. Okay to use it? Okay to use a drone in the Benghazi situation?
What is it, exactly, to which you are opposed? Previously, I asked you if it was okay to drone someone that the evidence was in your opinion beyond a reasonable doubt that his aim in life was to kill Americans in Afghanistan but his hiding in the mountains made his capture nearly impossible. And your answer is?
Me thinks much of your problem with drones is caused by your problem with our being in Afghanistan. But those issues are unrelated because we are, in fact, there and we are, at least in my opinion, fighting a war.
Your newly found concern about Hiroshima and Nagasaki is based on a calculus of benefit vs. morality and so should that be your calculus concerning drones-the lives of our men and women in combat vs. offing the bad guys (including collateral damage). Kill or be killed. Your belief whether we should be there or not should not be a factor on whether we should use drones when we are, in fact, there.
You seem to believe there is a difference between the face to face combatants and those planning their combat. Assuming there is evidence concerning the planners, that is a distinction without a difference. Would you have been against intercepting and shooting down the plane carrying Yamamoto to review his troops on an island that wasn’t the scene of combat. I hope not. If Yamamoto had dual citizenship, kill him nonetheless. If he had only U.S. citizenship, kill him nonetheless. Drone bin laden if we were reasonably sure he was in that building? Okay with me. How do you distinguish bin Laden from Yamamoto if it’s not the technology that bothers you? I think, then, you’re only left with the citizenship issue and how many U.S. citizens have we droned/murdered.
Citizenship doesn’t matter if someone is a holed up in the mountains fighting us or making the plans for those fighting us. Get real! Maybe we can send you to capture them and bring them to trial. Isn’t really drones that bother you? Too messy? Ah, war is hell, ain’t it?.
There is no proof that these drone attacks have been carried out against people planning combat attacks. Or at elast not solely the case. Bring our fucking troops home from Afghanistan and the problem is solved so far as those whose safety you are concerned about. Guess what. The drones will still be used the same fucking way.
Are you serious that there’s no proof that the dronees have tried to kill our troops or are planning or have planned such actions? Are we just droning any car that is driving down a road without evidence as to who is in the car? Just because you don’t have the evidence doesn’t mean “we” don’t have it.
Sorry that I am not smart enough to get your point nor to adequately communicate my point to you so I’ll try again. Stop the “criminal” b.s. talk and your analogies about criminals. Can’t you understand that we are at war with these people (war with a small w) and that the analogies you draw are false. And how surprising is it that there are some “legal experts, including theACLU, who agree with you.
By the way, will my posts not see the light of day if I use my usual “colorful” language?
It is not criminal BS. It is the truth. If you fail to see that you are blind and ignoring history. So be it.
As for using colorful language, I use some myself in the blog so express yourself freely and if I believe you have crossed a line I will inform you so.
Although we disagree I still welcome your input though it is unlikely either of us will change the other’s mind.
At last, you are correct; that is, we are unlikely to change one another’s mind. But it would be nice, however, if for once you would answer a question I have posed instead of rattling on with the same bullshit (a term you have used so I suppose it’s okay. Here are two examples. Okay to drone someone in Afghanistan planning or has planned previously an attack on U.S. troops where you have seen evidence that convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt of his complicity? Second hypothetical-Yamamoto was a US. Citizen. Okay to learn he is flying to a non-combat area, intercept his plane and shoot it down?
Two fair hypotheticals-one dealing with an enemy combatant vs. a mere criminal and the other with a U.S. citizen who has taken arms against us and target him for death. So please give an answer for once.
Look, troops in combat under imminent attack can use drones or whatever means to defend themselves. But since our troops should not be in Afghanistan we remove them and no longer need to protect them. I have been railing about the futility the uselessness of that endeavor for longer than I have about drones.
Yamamoto was a Japanese military officer engaged in a war against America and others. It is irrelevant what his citizenship was. But that has no relation to taking out alleged criminals…none whatsoever.
Sorry, I am not hungry for herring, red or any other color.
Even though you have claimed that your position on Afghanistan (get out) has nothing to do with your position on the use of drones, every time you write about the use of drones, it is accompanied by a diatribe about our being there. Can’t you get it through your head that we are there with combat troops risking their lives and that people trying to kill them and people plotting to have them killed are fair game for being droned. If you could be convinced that Mohammed hiding out in Waziristan was plotting an attack on an American base in Afghanistan, and his location was identified, okay to drone him? Poor Mohammed, the mere criminal. Capture him and try him. Really?
What the hell does Yamamoto being a military officer in uniform have to do with it. He was performing the same act(s) of war as Mohammed in Waziristan. A distinction without a difference. And it’s time for you to distinguish between your hatred at being in Afghanistan and the use of drones while we are there-and, to my knowledge, drones were used against only one U.S. citizen so let’s put that issue aside for the moment.
I know damned well we have combat troops there risking their lives. So what? They should not be there. Can’t you get that through your head? But even if they were not there and thus, not in danger under all the scenarios you have offered as justification for these murders, do you believe those murders would cease? If so what is the factual basis for that? Well, don’t waste your breath. There is none.
As for drones being used against only one citizen? WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. There was another American with al-Awlaki and then his 16 year old son was killed about two weeks later. Besides, I do not give a healthy shit about the citizenship of these murder victims. An American’s life is worth no more or less than any other nationality.
I’ve never offered an opinion whether combat troops should be there or not, and it is not germane to our discussion on whether drones should be used against “bad guys” tying to kill us in, for example, Yemen (because you, rightfully, say we will use them when we get out), so stop your hectoring about getting out of Afghanistan for someone/somewhere else.
Putting aside a discussion on the worth of an American vs. another for a later date, the life of an American, whether military or otherwise, is sure as shit worth more than the life of a “bad guy” holed up in the mountains plotting to kill Americans. As a lawyer, you ought to assume something for the sake of argument so assume you were the decision-maker and had overwhelming evidence. Drone him?
You are the one who keeps attempting top justify this program by citing the safety of your “brothers” in Afghanistan.
As for Greenwald his point, that I echo, is that we are targeting people based on nothing more than allegations, or actually declarations that they are terrorists or terrorist leaders (senior operatives) and our definition is whatever the hell we say it is.
Look, I’m glad you have commented…really I am. But I believe we have reached a point where we are both simply repeating ourselves. Yes, there may be occasions where we are parsing each other’s words but neither of us is really adding anything much new. Even my new blog posts, other than providing a link to a pertinent story, are going over ground I’ve already covered…perhaps better, perhaps worse…since September of 2011.
I do that more in hopes of drawing new folks to the discussion than of thinking I will dissuade you from your views.
Feel free to add more if you wish. I will always read your comments but I may not always feel compelled to respond directly to them.
I appreciate that you have remained civil though neither of us has been less than firm in our opinions. I was not so sure that would be the case when you first commented. I do enjoy the exchanges.
Fair enough so maybe I’ll have the last word(s), if you so choose. Greenwald and the Senators at the Brennan hearing seem only to be concerned about droning U.S. citizens so you are a lone wolf about other dronism (but that’s okay.
Wrong, I justify the program to protect Americans wherever they may be. And your assertion that we are targeting people on nothing more than allegations or declarations that they are terrorists is ludicrous on its face; don’t you think there might be more than a scintilla of evidence. I really don’t understand the legal basis for your opposition to droning non-citizens but have a good day anyway.
BTW, here is the link to my original post on this topic.
I am trying to limit our discourse to noncitizens since you think our laws are being violated even when they are droned. We’re not at war with Yemen but there is such a thing as asymmetrical warfare that has nothing to do with countries. Also, correct me if I’m wrong but the Constitution doesn’t apply to noncitizens on foreign soil for ” crimes” committed on foreign soil who are not in our custody.
I’m trying to have a discussion on legal issues not whether we should be in A, or whether it’s moral to use drones or whatever since I agree we won’t agree on that. So, on what legal basis is it to drone noncitizens in the scenario described above. After this legal matter is terminated, maybe we can move on to citizens.
Do you have any readers other than me and the Minx? Why aren’t they commenting? Afraid of your mental acuity?
Yes, my mental acuity is of such renown to strike fear in hearts everywhere.
I do have many more readers than just you and Minx. Some have made comments on other pieces, but I have some regular followers who I can only guess like to read but refrain from commenting for their own reasons. My host provides reports that gives me this info. In addition my entries are posted to my Facebook wall and a number of people have elected to comment there rather than on the blog itself.
I do wish more readers would comment. It would do wonders for my ego but also might provoke more of a multi-person dialogue. Oh, well.
I believe a few other erstwhile Reg-ulators lurk here. Would love to hear from them more often. Guys?
I have many more readers than commenters, my biggest disappointment in my blog. I think I subconsciously frame my opinions in more provocative ways hoping to draw more comments, but I have to keep reminding myself that ultimately I am writing for personal satisfaction above all.