Eager to judge? Killing CHILDREN is NEVER right, and yes, his drones HAVE killed many children in the middle east. When I voted for a president that was a lawyer I expected him to take extra care that he obeyed our laws -- his actions prove that he has utterly failed to do that; ergo, I can judge Bush-dark all I want to! And please, if you can't argue your viewpoint any better than you have don't waste my time responding to my 1st amendment FREEDOM OF SPEECH!

I also believe that in a dangerous world, the United States must sometimes carry out intelligence operations ------ HE is part and parcel of what makes this a dangerous world, so no, I will not defer to his lies and obfuscation of what is REALLY going on!

Yeppers, he basically called Obama Bush-dark! So I take it your approval of Stewart's words means you also approve of mine?

"Since drones are so cheap, I suggest we take up a collection a buy one for ourselves, and drop it square on the congress - preferably while it's in session."
*********************************************************************************
Sorry, Marsha, but I cannot join you in taking up that collection.
I do NOT believe in using drones to kill *anyone*.

That was tongue-in-cheek. I don't even like guns. But frankly, if our government is going to see fit to target an Al Qaeda operative on US soil like it has on foreign soil - using drones - with total disregard for collateral damage, then I may have to change my non-violent position. It's long been a standard in the criminal legal community that it's better to let 20 possible criminals go free than to wrongly incarcerate an innocent person. That should be the standard for the government's use of drones, but obviously it is not, and I bleed for those innocent people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I fear that you're right. Does this policy end up creating more terrorists than it eliminates?

That's a question we all should be asking.

At this point in time I have to wonder if the biggest terrorist of all isn't in the White House ...

Try this link:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-february-7-2013-neil-barofsky

And also this link:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-february-6-2013-ed-whitacre

Belated thanks, vierotchka -- it took me ages to figure it out, but it provided a link to the UK ComedyCentral website... so I finally got it!!!

"...it's not as if things would have been much different if the other corporate puppet had won..."

Sad but true.

Oh well, it's not as if things would have been much different if the other corporate puppet had won.
Good point -- let's see, we were told to vote for Bush-dark b/c he was the 'lesser evil' ... puhleeeeze, how's that 'evil droner' workin' out for ya? And yes, you and I DO have the right to shout our displeasure from the rooftops b/c WE DIDN'T VOTE FOR EITHER EVIL!

Pwr 2 the GREEN peons!
GUILLOTINE DRONES AND THE POLITICIANS WHO USE THEM!

Murder is murder,... I could careless what your arbitrary man made law says... You do not have the right to just murder people because you say so. International law my fucking ass... common law FTW!

Wait, is that FTW f*ck the world? Pretty tall order there, not sure it would be advisable either.

You have a point though.....it pains me to consider that we, and in particular the jack-booted thugs in Congress, turn a blind eye to the murder of a living, breathing child, when that murder is committed by a drone, but we will spend endless hours anguishing over the aborting of a fetus, that is not a living, breathing child, when a desperate woman terminates a pregnancy.

FTW = For The Win

"International Law permits the use of drones (or whatever) to target enemies. International Law does not permit torture. Torture is against the Geneva Convention the use of drones or whatever to target enemies is not."

The thing is Sedwin, you are technically correct. And I have to say, I would be much happier if our military had simply done drone strikes and not used torture as a means of interrogation. Note, I'm not saying I would be happy, just happier, meaning that I would be very disgruntled and/or disappointed instead of seething at the overall lack of morality and competence.

Still... technically correct does not make something morally correct. I do think that the drone strikes could be used effectively and morally, but doing so means that a lot more effort would be going into things like intelligence work AND a lot of the targets who are potential targets, and I mean that in the sense of people who are potentially bad guys but it is not certain and not in the sense that they could or could not be targets of a drone strike, would not be struck with drones because doing so would likely cause the death of lots of innocent lives.

I think that another thing preventing drone strikes from being used in a more moral fashion is that accountability for accidental deaths and mistakes would sky rocket. If the people performing these strikes suddenly started thinking equally morally and militarily, then there would be a lot of investigations and court hearings every time there was a mistake or accident.

It never works because people subscribe to the myth that war is inevitable, or even worse that war is sometimes necessary and just. Those who try to end wars are fighting not against those in power, but against you and others who hold notions similar to the ones you just expressed.

Not to mention those 23 EO's shouting for gun control b/c of the Sandy Hook massacre ... my problem is that MILLIONS of children in this country NEVER get enough to eat, and don't have a roof over their heads; but hey, we have to embrace austerity so that those hungry kids get even LESS going forward! And don't forget, even Obama is embracing all those stupid cuts ....

Pwr 2 the HUNGRY CHILDREN peons!
GUILLOTINE AUSTERITY!

Its perhaps naive to think that the masses will ever accept their own responsibility for wars, preferring to foist the blame on others, but what I said is completely accurate. Those in power are completely powerless without the willing support of the common man. In essence, what if they declared a war and nobody showed up? You think those in power are going to fight it themselves?

I understand that you wish to avoid your personal responsibilities for wars. And as i said, I doubt that the end of your kind of thinking is going to go away. But it changes nothing in regards to that way of thinking being responsible for wars.

So go ahead, keep on cheering the troops, and keep on blaming somebody else for the violence. And you can probably keep on voting for politicians who authorize the wars you pretend we are stuck with.

“International Law permits the use of drones (or whatever) to target enemies.”

Sure it does.

To keep on the right side of the law, simply re-define “enemy”.

Once upon a time, an “enemy combatant” was defined as a member of the armed forces of a country with which you were at war. Now, according to the US, it is “any male of military age in the strike zone”.

Oh, wait – better widen that “strike zone” too, so that you can target these newly-defined “enemy combatants” in countries you aren’t even formally at war with.

Poor old Orwell must be somersaulting in his grave.

Not forgetting that "necessary" and "just" are remarkably elastic terms.

You clearly didn't understand a word I wrote.

It has nothing to do with "sending troops in".

How about just NOT bombing countries you aren't even at war with?

Do you really find it acceptable that US drones kill civilians in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia?

If you do, then you presumably find it equally acceptable for Russia or China or Iran to send drones into, say, Washington, or New York, or Chicago, or LA... if they have received "intelligence" that there are "militants" in those cities who "may" just possibly be "plotting" some attack against them.

"Those who try to end wars are fighting not against those in power, but against you and others who hold notions similar to the ones you just expressed."

Very well put.

Continuity

Why would you give credit for "ending the war in Iraq" to Obama, when in fact the war was already over hen he took office and the withdrawal of troops was in accordance with the SOFA from the Bush admin? You accuse "righties" of not acknowledging it, yet why should they acknowledge a patent lie?

Completely true...

On November 27, 2008, the SOFA agreement tendered by the Bush admin was ratified by the Iraqi Parliament. The SOFA established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.

There is so much to criticize the right about, why do you feel compelled to make up lies to criticize?

Exactly what part of appointing this top Bush-era official is not “continuity” in your view?

And how on earth does pointing out such obvious continuity of Bush-era policies / appointments make anyone a “rightie”?

On that, you couldn’t be more “wrongie”.

Yes, indeed.
But it helps to perpetuate the myth that the new administration is different.

Keyser_Soze did not state that the war was "already over" when Obama took office, but merely pointed out that his administration adhered to the Status Of Forces Agreement negotiated in 2008.

The war was "over" on paper, sediwn. But the fat lady hasn't sung yet. The whole point of the conversation was that you took umbrage at anyone suggesting that it was not Obama who actually orchestrated the drawdown in the first place.

Reciprocally, please try to read more carefully before accusing anyone who criticises anything the present regime does of being "naive" and/or a "rightie".

".,.. there is not a war on paper in any of the nations you have mentioned...." That was my entire point.

#1
The war against Iraq did indeed exist on paper -- the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution was formally enacted on October 16, 2002.

I thought you were referring to Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. There is no formal war against any of these countries, and yet the US is targeting them with drones and killing innocent civilians.

#2
“You don’t like Obama”. Ah, now there’s the rub -- and, no, you don't get my point at all.

In fact, I find Obama intelligent, witty and personable – but that does not mean that I adulate him to the point of considering him beyond criticism.

Nor does it mean that the actions of his administration, continuing, extending and in some cases even heightening, the actions of the previous administration, warrant a free pass.

This is no time to indulge in a cult of personality.

“It is getting tiring”.

I agree. But I will give it one more try:

I never said that the illegal war against Iraq did not exist on paper.

I said that there was no formal war with the other countries the US is targeting (Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia).

I really don’t know how many times I have to repeat this.

I do not agree with your “drones are better than declared war” excuse for the wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians.

If anything, the drone attacks are morally even more reprehensible – your labelling me a “rightie” for opposing them is beyond ludicrous.

"... you said, the war was 'over' on paper..."

Yes, that is correct: December 2008 SOFA.

"... I however, trust the decisions of our generals...."

That's your choice.

"on paper", sedwin... "on paper"

You're not making an awful lot of sense there, sedwin. I kind of give up.

The Bush administration signed off on the drawdown in December 2008. The Obama administration saw it through (but not before asking permission -- refused -- to keep more troops in Iraq for longer than agreed).

Continuity... just like the Obama admin's extension of the Patriot Act.

I really don't see where you're trying to go with this.

Obama has done some very good things on the domestic front (Lily Ledbetter / Matthew Shepard / healthcare etc.) but the foreign policies and "counterterrorist" policies are just the same old, same old -- with bells and whistles and shiny ribbons.

"I don't see your point"

My point is a very, very simple one: Continuity.

The Obama administration has seamlessly continued the policies of the Bush administration.

The Bush administration drew up the SOFA agreement. The Obama administration saw it through.

The Bush administration drew up the Patriot Act. The Obama administration extended it.

The Bush administration launched the drone attacks. The Obama administration extended and accelerated them

Geithner, Gates, Brennan... it's all the same old crew on board.

And so on, and so forth, ad nauseam.

He certainly has and he's *still* doing it.

I am amazed! This is one of his best works! Glad to see you understand the situation.