Flashback: Russ Feingold 'Pleased' Anwar Al-Awlaki Was Taken Out By Drone Strike

[ProSense]

Russ Feingold 'Pleased' Anwar Al-Awlaki Was Taken Out By Drone Strike

WASHINGTON -- Former Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold, whose lone vote against the Patriot Act made him a hero among civil libertarians, said he has no problem with the killing of U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in a drone attack in Yemen last fall.

"I'm very pleased that he was taken out," said Feingold, who spoke to The Huffington Post ahead of the Tuesday release of his new book, "While America Sleeps." "I do believe he was part and parcel of al Qaeda. I do think it is legitimate to go after al Qaeda operatives."

The clandestine assassination of an American citizen without a trial sparked a legal and moral debate last year that echoed a similar one after 9/11 as lawmakers drafted the now controversial Patriot Act. A secret Obama administration memo leaked soon after the strike concluded that Awlaki could be legally targeted if it was not possible to capture him alive.

Even as he told The Huffington Post in an interview that "Americans have metaphorically gone back to sleep when it comes to constitutional intrusions in the name of fighting terrorism," the former member of the Senate Intelligence Committee made clear that in Awlaki's case, exceptions should be made.

- more -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/22/russ-feingold-anwar-al-awlaki_n_1291593.html

[MotherPetrie]

1. Well, Russ, you can go back to sleep.

[OnyxCollie]

7. Feingold said that the attack on Anwar Al Awlaki was "not necessarily wrong"

and that it would be permissible only under very narrow circumstances, i.e., if there were no other way to get him.

Feingold says that the key question to make it legal (which has yet to be litigated) was whether or not it was true that there was no other way to get him.
http://current.com/shows/the-young-turks/videos/russ-feingold-polls-well-against-wisc-gov-walker-but-hes-not-running-for-office-in-next-2-years

[Bonobo]

2. It's too bad you can't see the larger picture.

It is much bigger than just one person and bigger, even, than one president.

It is about the history of the United States and about the identity of every American when they leave US soil and have to be ambassadors of their country on the international stage.

It is about the future. It is about the past. It is about America's moral authority (what little it can still claim to have).

You may gain some vague points on the internets for reductionistic thinking, but it is transparent and frankly small-minded.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

53. What moral authority?

That moral authority exists only in the minds of the American people. The people of other nations recognize us for what we are, the biggest bully on the block.

And no, I'm not defending the killing of American citizens.

[JI7]

3. is it less bad if one isn't an american ?

that seems to be the argument from some.

what Obama is doing is how the "war on terror" should have been from the start rather than what has happened in iraq and afghanistan.

[Honeycombe8]

4. He apparently doesn't see the killing of the AQ opertive as a constitutional intrusion.

It's as simple as that.

Reasonable people seem to differ in their opinion on it.

[MrSlayer]

5. Who is going to sympathize with a terrorist?

I certainly don't care about that asshole being killed. Nor do I care about bin Laden or anyone associated with him. We're long past the point of even pretending we're about justice or law. We're about protecting the interests of the owners of this country, period.

[ProSense]

11. Not me. n/t

[The Magistrate]

6. I Agree With Sen. Feingold, Ma'am

[Historic NY]

21. +1

[Bake]

44. Yes. i also agree with the Senator.

Bake

[Tarheel_Dem]

8. The Liberal-Libertarian hybrid has gone haywire again. Is there any wonder....

why liberals can't get things done? I mean, they move from one shiny object to the next, and accomplish nothing. While this story may be important to some, what happened to the uproar about gun violence? Did we pass a new law yet? And what about the hot burning issue of immigration reform? All done?

And why is it that the assholes who shoot little girls in the face, merely because they want an education, get a pass? You know, the dickwads who embed themselves among women & children, because they're fucking cowards?

[freshwest]

17. Libertarians don't care about that stuff, it's all about bashin Obama here.

[EastKYLiberal]

19. Someone might revoke their liberal card if they don't show a proper amount of outrage...

I'm more concerned about domestic policies like health care, minimum wage, a progressive income tax, the environment, etc...

When I'm struggling in this world, the least of my concerns is the US military swatting flies in regions I can't pronounce.

[Tarheel_Dem]

25. Exactly.

[tama]

57. And

what you do to least of us, you do to me.

By which I mean heart felt thanks for your honesty, that's more than many here are capable of. There's hope in honesty, much less in denial and projection and shifting blame.

[SomethingFishy]

56. So I'm only allowed to be outraged

at little guns. Huge ones are ok since they aren't shooting up schools in Connecticut. Got it...

I can only be outraged at one thing at a time. Got it....

Because I am just as outraged at the mass killings we engage in overseas, I am giving the guy who shot a little girl in the face a pass. Got it....

When I see a shiny object I must switch direction. Got it...

When I post on DU I must discuss every single issue on my mind that day or someone may think I'm a liberal-libertarian hybrid gone haywire. Got it....

I'm glad you laid these rules out for me. I had no idea they existed. It's not easy being a liberal these days.

[Tarheel_Dem]

58. Call me when the president breaks the law. Until then,,

[rhett o rick]

9. Your posts are like a game. What is her point? I know, I know, since Russ Feingold is ok with

drone strikes then it must be cool.

Dick Cheney is also ecstatic with drone killing. He wishes he had that capability when he was president.

[ProSense]

10. Do you

"Dick Cheney is also ecstatic with drone killing. He wishes he had that capability when he was president. "

...really know what you're talking about (because Bush used drones)?

[rhett o rick]

12. Oh plezzzzz. Your adoration is clouding your judgement.

Of course Bush used drones for a few months at the end of his reign. So? What's your point? That because Bush used them for a couple of months justifies Pres Obama's use?

Here's a question for you. Do you support the president's plan to use drones to kill on American soil?

[ProSense]

13. My "adoration" of Feingold?

"Of course Bush used drones for a few months at the end of his reign."

Clearly you don't know.

The United States government has made hundreds of attacks on targets in northwest Pakistan since 2004 using drones (unmanned aerial vehicles) controlled by the Central Intelligence Agency's Special Activities Division.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan

[rhett o rick]

14. And your point is???????????

"The more expansive target set was originally approved in the final months of the Bush administration in late 2008, but has been stepped up under the Obama White House, the official said. It is seen as a key strategy to help protect the growing number of U.S. forces in neighboring Afghanistan from insurgents operating in Pakistan's border region."

http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/04/obama-administrations-greater-use-of-drones-goes-back-to-bush-era/

[ProSense]

15. So you took a point about 2008 to claim:

"Of course Bush used drones for a few months at the end of his reign"

My point is that's inaccurate, and the snip you posted doesn't make the above statement true.

[rhett o rick]

28. Back to your point. Are you saying that because

Bush did it, it's cool? American drone attacks in sovereign nations is justifiable? Drones patrolling skies in America is justifiable?

I believe Bush only used drones in the area of Afghanistan and Pakistan where we are engaged in war. I believe Pres Obama has used them in other sovereign nations like Yemen. I may be wrong. Now it appears the administration is gearing up to allow drones to be used on American soil for surveillance, at least at first. Looks like a slippery slope to me.

I believe John Brennan interprets the Authorization to Use Military Force to allow the president to direct drone strikes in any country. Now to me, that's going way to far.

[Demo_Chris]

16. I am pleased this guy is gone as well. Doesn't mean I am pleased with this new position

I was also pleased to learn the right wing kidnapper was wiped out. But that does not mean I support the police gunning down suspects without a trial (not saying that's what happened there, just making a point).

So yes, good deal, an actual terrorist is dead. Bad deal that our President now feels the government has the legal authority to kill anyone anywhere, with no oversight and no accountability.

[Hulk]

18. When the evidence is overwhelming...

...and the choice is to rish other American lives to go in and get him; yes, I'm for drones.

I accept that we are at war with these savages - al Qaeda - who seem very comfortable in taking out hundreds if not thousands of innocent men, women and children to further their cause. I'm not eager to write off collateral damage, and see innocent men, women and children die in the act; but let's get a little realistic here. Would you rather the enemy lives, plots and continues their ruthless murder and mayhem until we are willing to send in a dozen or more US military who may be taken out, may cause as much or more collateral damage in their act, and may or may not succeed?
This is a complex issue. But when you have everything pointing to al Qaeda determined to strike "us" or other innocent lives to further their radical agenda - then I'm in favor of drones - Americans or not. Al Qaeda has declared war and acted in accordance with that gesture. Innocent lives are going to be lost. We may not like it, and we may not like the idea that "an American" wasn't brought to justice in a court room; but I'm not opposed to a drone strike to take the SOB's out....hopefully with no collateral damage, and hopefully only the bad guys. But that's a wee bit naive to expect.

[EastKYLiberal]

20. Finally, some goddamn common sense on DU... nt

[Bake]

45. Whoomp there it is!

YOu said a mouthful. Well done.

Bake

[ProSense]

22. From Senator Wyden's statement

“As I and ten other senators told the President yesterday, if individual Americans choose to take up arms against the United States, there will clearly be some circumstances in which the President has the authority to use lethal force against those Americans, just as President Lincoln had the authority to use force against the Confederate Army during the Civil War. At the same time, it is vitally important for Congress and the American public to have a full understanding of how the executive branch interprets this authority, so that Congress and the public can decide whether the President’s power to deliberately kill American citizens is subject to appropriate limitations and safeguards. Every American has the right to know when their government believes that it is allowed to kill them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022320280
Beyond that precedent, it appears that the questions are designed to clarify the process and, primarily, to ensure that it's actually targeting people who take up arms against the U.S.

[FSogol]

23. Same here. Don't want to be killed by the Government? Don't be in a

war zone helping the people we are fighting.

[choie]

24. I don't give a damn

if Bernie Sanders approved of it - IT IS WRONG.

[ProSense]

26. It's a good thing

"I don't give a damn if Bernie Sanders approved of it - IT IS WRONG."

...that the OP isn't demanding anyone agree with Feingold.

The drone white paper sparked a debate.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022321400

[ljm2002]

27. And?

So because Russ Feingold liked the outcome of a particular drone strike, because he thought this was one exception worth making, the rest of us liberals should just sit down and STFU as there is nothing left to debate on the issue of drones?

Puhleeze.

[ProSense]

29. Please,

"So because Russ Feingold liked the outcome of a particular drone strike, because he thought this was one exception worth making, the rest of us liberals should just sit down and STFU as there is nothing left to debate on the issue of drones?"

...tell me where the hell it says any such thing in the OP. Is it a feel-good mechanism to imagine that people are telling you to STFU?

[ljm2002]

31. Oh, I see...

...so you posted Feingold's position on this matter, without adding any commentary of your own, just to engage in a reasoned debate? It's a straight-up argument from authority, and again, since you did not add any of your own opinions I did indeed feel free to posit your motive.

[ProSense]

32. Yes,

"so you posted Feingold's position on this matter, without adding any commentary of your own, just to engage in a reasoned debate?"

...I posted it. Is there a rule that Feingold's statements should not be posted? Who else: Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Howard Dean, the President?

Is there a list, and if so, can you please provide it. Otherwise, I think your comment is ridiculous and you maybe should have kept it to yourself.

[ljm2002]

34. Did I say anything about a rule?

Please show me where I mentioned any list, or told you you cannot post something.

Oh and way to prove my original point. "I think your comment is ridiculous and you maybe should have kept it to yourself."

Translation: Sit down and STFU.

[ProSense]

36. LOL!

I've been silenced!

[ljm2002]

38. Judging by your post count...

...I must say that is a truly ridiculous comment, even if made in jest.

[WinkyDink]

30. "I do believe"....I do think...." I wonder why he did not say "I KNOW....."?

*sarcasm

P.S. Russ's extra, unnecessary, and emphatic "do" within his verbs shows a psychological inability to, for lack of a better word, commit to his own assertions.

[whatchamacallit]

33. Yes, trot out the unfortunate opinion of a democrat in hope of stifling dissent

Maybe you figure this works because that's all it would take to get you to compromise your principles.

[ProSense]

35. Damn, it isn't working.

Oh well, back to the drawing board.

[whatchamacallit]

37. Yes

thankfully it's not.

[ProSense]

39. Don't you love it

when you create your own straw man and then kill it!

What a super great feeling!

[whatchamacallit]

40. Straw Man? Why did you post Feingold's opinion

if not as support for the policy? You only fool yourself.

[ProSense]

41. Because I wanted to?

"Why did you post Feingold's opinion if not as support for the policy? You only fool yourself."

I also happen to agree with him, but evidently you thought long and hard to expose my sinister intentions.

[whatchamacallit]

43. I don't believe your intentions are sinister

just misguided by blind fealty.

[ProSense]

46. Well, gee

"just misguided by blind fealty."

...you apparently know me, poor little "misguided" me, so well.

[whatchamacallit]

48. It only took

93,998 posts

[ProSense]

49. Question:

"It only took 93,998 posts"

...How many other posters are you obsessed with?

I'd appreciate having groupies if I were a rock star.

[whatchamacallit]

51. Don't flatter yourself

I'm not obsessed with you, it's just near impossible to avoid you. Someone who builds such a big target can't bemoan the fire it draws.

[ProSense]

52. "I'm not obsessed with you, it's just near impossible to avoid you."

Come again?

[ProSense]

42. Hey,

do you mind exposing me in this thread:

ACLU Court Filing Argues for Judicial Review of U.S. Targeted Killings of Americans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022322698

[DevonRex]

54. Funny how you're still talking despite all that stifling.

Maybe this will work better.



Did I do that?

[whatchamacallit]

55. That's because the technique

only works on weak minded party loyalists.

[JI7]

47. doesn't Howard Dean also support the use of Drones

[arely staircase]

50. i agree with feingold most of the time

this is one of those times.

[Floyd_Gondolli]

59. I guess all of the sudden Feingold is a cretin

This little revelation must be somewhat disturbing for those here who have long held him up as the keeper of liberal values.

Personally, I think it's a fucking riot.