Who cares if some don't have a prob with drones/kill lists/assassinations?

[stupidicus]

it's not like they can overcome the many problems with their use as legal/moral matters. As "good and loyal dems" they'll come up with all sorts of reasons and rationales why the boat shouldn't be rocked, but hey, oftentimes the line between pragmatism and principle leaves the one crossing that rubicon giving nothing but lip service to principles to which they can't return as champions of. It's kinda like the way the modern rightwingnut as "good xtians" forgot all those lessons the JC guy preached about the poor and whatnot. Their "goodness" thereby comes into question, although their loyalty to whatever causes them to ignore such can't be questioned. WHile the reasons/motives for approval and defense vary, in my experience they were largely absent and silence predominated the lefty ranks throughout the Bush admin, where criticisms/condemnations were frequently seen. I'll leave it to the reader to conclude in their own minds then, what the most likely common denominator is, which in my mind has little to do with the legal/moral aspects of what is going on, but rather isolates it to who is "pulling the trigger" so to speak, or the aforementioned would have been the case.

Top Five Objections to the White House’s Drone Killing Memo
http://www.juancole.com/2013/02/objections-houses-killing.html

All they can do at worst is malign in a concerted way (like say, was done over the pre-election concerns expressed over the social safety nets, etc) those who dare to object as a matter of principle and practice. To me, after a decade of battling rightwingnut pants/bedwetters over the many issues associated with the phony war on terror, I can't say that I am shocked. As a lefty and a member of small minority of Americans

In January 2002, 6% of respondents called the war "a mistake."

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-03-16-poll_N.htm

that "objected" to the war in Afghanistan and the AUMF from which most of this garbage flows, I do however find the lack of lessons learned by many on the left a bit startling, even though more appear to be waking up, if not to the error of going into begin with, certainly the futility of our long stay there. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57404807-503544/poll-support-for-war-in-afghanistan-hits-all-time-low/. But hey, that's what happens when you expect edible fruit from a poisoned tree that AUMF represented. The "sit down and shutup" about the drones/assassination stuff that will come from some isn't a defense of it, it's a tacit concession on their part that they have no defense of it, and really just an example of their guilt of gobbling up that poisoned fruit, and feeling fat and sassy as a result. The only "win" they might "legally" get will no doubt differ little than the one we saw in the case of Afghanistan -- the "good" but illegal war under international law that polled highly here like with drone strikes -- and Iraq, from a lack of prosecution. It will be interesting to see if they'll support such things should they achieve a "war crime" designation. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/01/un-drone-inquiry/ For many of us the kill list has just made it more of a family affair so to speak, that speaks to the general lawlessness with which this phony war on terror has been pursued.

Why it's almost like those defenders of the CONtinuing erosions under our "dem" pres would be up in arms if this idea ever achieved fruition. http://my.firedoglake.com/davidswanson/2011/09/06/congresswoman-lee-introduces-bill-to-repeal-aumf/ which is really nothing new to those of us in the anti-war crowd http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_dave_lin_061121_congress_should_imme.htm It does raise the question though as to whether support for such an effort completely undermines the support for what is going on now, leaving the current supporters of it in a bit of a quandary or having a need to explain how if "everything is all right now" such a move is needed or desirable.

This whole affair kinda reminds me of the other BS so many swallowed whole due to mezmerization by the Big "D" in the past, and which of course similarly, they'd like to think had no role in the mass murder and mayhem that subsequently followed when the "bad cop" took the helm.

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm

I've been asking rightwingnuts what Krugman did not long ago -- "How many times do people like me have to be right..." -- for a very long time now on these matters, and I'm afraid, as no doubt all those who share my pov on the matter of those working so hard to crystallize this thing into the "new normal" for their pres, that the "I told you so's" in the making will provide little solace when and if another "bad cop with an (R)" wakes them from their stupor.

So, while it's easy to care about the issue of the slippery slope soaked with blood laced with the shattered remains of our constitution, and the ideological composition of those promoting/supporting the lubejob, I have no concerns whatsoever about who will win this case on the moral if not legal merits.

And it's good to see rightwingnuts http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/droning-on-about-the-drones/ and some on the left finding common ground on an issue and the rhetoric, method and means by which they champion this issue, even if their motives may differ.

After all, foreign policy is where DC finds and sees most of its bipartisanship, which is obscured by the "give the dogs a bone" stuff like social safety nets, etc issues on the domestic front. In the interest of gaining or preserving on those fronts -- bread and butter" issues -- it's no small wonder why some are willing to overlook and/or take exception to criticism/condemnations stemming largely from the same rationale so many rightwingers used to justify Bush's BS, like "only those who have something to hide need fear his felonious warrantless wiretapping -- they think they never need to fear being the victim. And of course on torture, the same rationale -- that some must be tortured to find that plot where thousands are to be killed -- is being employed on the kill list issue, only with greater finality.

“Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”

is but one example of the case, the principle, and rhetoric used to express in this instance, that predates the constitution. By all means drones/kill list/assassination of US citizen supporters, take a stab at showing the flaw in it. It seems to me like like it represents something very similar to the rationales/moral underpinnings of the reason why torture was rejected, no? Hell, even the justifications I've read over the killing of innocent women and children by drones reeks of the same BS I read from many rightwingnuts as a justification for the Iraq War -- "They should have deposed him!" -- like who you are married to or sired by comes with choices easily exploitable, like keeping your distance from them.

ANd torture is just transient suffering physically, as opposed to a "final" solution imposed on those who haven't been shown in a manner the constitution dictates, to be a problem warranting that solution.

Would it be a stretch to say we aren't just killing people, but the constitution also in the process, as well as our moral standing as was the case with torture use?

The world thinks so. http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/nationworld/report/061312_drone_poll/poll-most-non-americans-oppose-us-drone-attacks/

We're "exceptional", ain't we?

The only silver lining as I see it with these issues, is that the rightwingnuts are hypocritically NOT praising BHO for keeping their pants/bedwetting behinds safe from those who hate us "for our freedoms". Sadly this issue -- on the kill list matter specifically anyway -- is all about some of those freedoms being taken away.

[Gman]

1. In your opinion

That is. I don't have a problem with any of it. But then, I'm not a purist either.

[stupidicus]

2. as is the case for like 60% plus of Americans

on the use of drones in the way they're being used anyway -- and perhaps excluding the "citizen" angle.

but they are likely largely the same crew that thought invading and occupying Afghanistan was the right thing to do too. I suppose that while their hindsight shown in the poll linked is no replacement for foresight, it is still better than blindness.

At least my "opinion" has a foundation you've failed to address or erode in any way, as opposed to the empty declaration of "not having a problem with any of it". That's as compelling and convincing as say, using only a "I didn't do it" defense in a criminal matter, and like the evidenced stacked against you isn't a "problem" you need to address. Wow, you have an "opinion" contrary to mine you can only declare but not articulate the reasons why beyond claiming a lack of purity? Say it ain't so!

ANd of course as the prosecutor in this case, I'd have to raise your introduction of "purist" here as the issue that it is, given under the circumstances/context in which it was used, it indicates a callous disregard/lack of concern for the law -- what all the biggest objections to the issues raised here involve.

If I was a juror I'd think you guilty as sin.

But I'm sure you have no problem with that either.

[tama]

3. Americans Schamericans

What I like about these discussions is that they expose and bring to surface the horribly ugly nationalism that is behind these mass murders etc.

The plague of nationalism (American ubermensch vs. non-american subhumans) really really really needs to be discussed at deep and transformative level, if we ever ever ever want to learn to live as global interdependent society that we have been turned into by by Eurocentric manifest destiny and forces of capitalism.

Fascism is very real, and fascism is tribal hierarchic and puristic reaction to oppressive globalization on nation state level. All violent nationalism in that sense is fascism. Fascism is based on imagined enemies, not on globalized empathy and compassion.

Which is progressive and adaptive, dear friends?

[stupidicus]

5. here here

that's the bandwagon I've been on since joining the "internets" so long ago now.

I've long thought and argued that the twin towers we lost were figuratively replaced by the dark towers of ignorance and apathy that accelerated the encroachment of fascism in this country, as well as giving it more of the militaristic face that feeds that nationalism. It also made the "otherization" process more acceptable and palatable as well, which no doubt explains in no small part say, our collective lack of remorse over what we did to the Iraqis, as well as the general lack of concern over the innocent people killed by our drone strikes.

[tama]

8. Friend

[Gman]

12. Well, I guess you're looking for a debate

then please excuse my lack of participation. Invading Afghanistan was a good idea. Letting OBL go at Tora Bora was the deal killer.

And that dead horse has been beaten to a pulp over the years now.

And using drones is a fine tactic. It's like a suicide bomber from the sky but without the body. Are you OK with suicide bombings?

[stupidicus]

13. Sure it was

that's why it's so popular now, and they are as I understand it, violating the Iran sanctions as a sign of the good will and cooperation we've fostered.

I'd ask if you're okay with failures, but it appears as if you already answered that question

[Gman]

14. Ok with failures?

It's not like we had a say in it.

[stupidicus]

15. indeed

that's why it was a bad idea and failure from the start. Their self-interest and self-determination we weren't willing to nix practically insured it.

Hell, even repubs have wised up in large numbers http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-04-12/politics/35454008_1_support-for-afghan-war-afghan-troops-afghanistan-war

I can understand "it seemed like a good idea at the time" even if I disagree with that as one who opposed it, but how involving ourselves in such a costly failure was and remains a "good idea" is a bit baffling.

[Gman]

16. Unfortunately, Obama was a victim of what was warned as the Pottery Barn rule

you break it, you bought it. Pulling out unconditionally and abruptly was and is not an option. Obama is doing it right.

[stupidicus]

17. that's not the subject, nor would I contest that -- except maybe the "surges"

like with Afghanistan, only time will tell whether he's "doing it right".

I think in the case of the WOT generally, he's creating more problems than he can ever hope to solve, in a Hydra kinda way. This is because there's no body he can kill where the death of the many heads must follow. I'd bet that happens in the wake of every drone strike where innocents are killed -- 1 dead big boy/dead guy replaced by 2 or more inspired to follow in their footsteps as a result.

It's no diff than invading Iraq, torture, etc in terms of recruitment value.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. The "Father Knows Best" wing of party is all for politicians deciding who lives or dies.

[stupidicus]

6. my dad proved to me

how wrong that can be..lol

[DerekG]

7. Democrats For A Progressive Police State

All the mass murder and criminality, but with a sprinkle of reproductive rights, LGBT equality, and gun regulation.

How's that for an Obama campaign slogan?

[forestpath]

9. That would have been honest, anyway.

[stupidicus]

11. ouch

those are a few of the bones we dogs are supposed to gnaw on and to be placated and distracted by, for sure.

A good one I'd say, and as Commander, we should follow his order http://www.google.com/search?q=obama+hold+me+accountable&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGHP_en

[forestpath]

10. K&R