I am not a"Loyal Member of the Democratic Party" I am a Democrat

[rustydog]

and I am conflicted on drone strikes. I am adamantly against the Administration's justification of drone assasinations of American Citizens overseas based on an official's belief they could, possibly, maybe be involved perhaps, in a possible maybe imminent (maybe not) attack against America.

Shit this is what Bush and the GOP put forth as Unitary Executive. If the President does it, it is legal...Bullshit, it flies in the face of all that we stand for (supposedly stand for).

[JaneyVee]

1. I'm conflicted too because as bad as they are they're sure better than the whole

'massive pointless military invasions' thing we used to do. And I use the term 'better' very loosely.

[Auntie Bush]

7. What you said

[MynameisBlarney]

25. Seconded

eom

[Hell Hath No Fury]

2. Well said.

[quinnox]

3. I too, believe that even the President of the USA is not above the law

And is not a King, ruling by divine right, where whatever he says is law. Even the president should have limits on his power, and yes, even when its A Democrat in the White House. I say that, as a member of the Democratic party as well.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

4. Nixon famously said

"Well, when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal."

[Blanks]

5. I believe he followed that up with...

I realize not everyone believes that. - or something like that.

In the Frost/Nixon interview.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

9. But he believed it....

That was, and remains, the problem.

[cherokeeprogressive]

12. He's dead. What he believed is moot.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

13. Precedent is moot?

Are we to understand that you don't believe that same attitude exists today?

[Blanks]

14. He's dead now.

...and we have the historical record that the president is not above the law. It seems to me that the problem should be solved now.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

16. And the use of drones against

American citizens is perfectly legal in your assessment?

[Blanks]

48. Does it somehow make Nixon less dead?

The precedent has been established. The president is not above the law. Possessing that knowledge hardly makes me responsible for prosecuting the wrongdoings of presidents. Take that up with someone in authority. Preferably an attorney.

[tama]

76. They impeached Clinton's dick

so you know how the legal procedure would go, if anyone in Congress believed in wisdom of following Constitution.

But of course they don't. And can't say they should. As social contract, it's broken beyond repair.

[Ashgrey77]

28. You mean like George W Bush and Dick Cheney.

They sure do seem to be above the law. We are still living in the fucking horror show they setup after 9/11.

[Blanks]

51. The fact that I know that Nixon is dead...

hardly makes me responsible for the acts of previous presidents.

I'm simply making the point that Nixon knew (even when he made the statement) that he was not above the law.

I'm certainly not defending any president, past, present or future that breaks the law.

[JoePhilly]

6. Let's get to the underlying issue ...

Long before any of us knew who Obama was, and right after 9/11, the US Congress gave the Executive Branch (read "the President&quot expanded powers to use the military against "threats" to National Security.

Many of us knew that once given, such powers would not be handed back, in short order, by ANY PRESIDENT.

How did we know this?

Because no SITTING PRESIDENT is going to give up such powers while in office. Let's say you, as President, give up those powers, and we are attacked again. You will be crucified. And you know it.

Which is why you do not give up those powers. As President, you will KEEP every power available in this regard.

When these powers were given to Bush, my estimation was that it might be 30-40 years before they were changed or reversed in any meaningful way. Might take longer.

[rhett o rick]

20. It appears that there are no limits to the powers authorized by AUMF

Authorization to Use Military Force. Pres Obama appears to be extending these powers further than Bush. And it appears there is nothing to stop him or the next president. Seems to me that the AUMF is unconstitutional. The Constitution establishes a balance of power between the branches and I dont believe Congress can abrogate their powers to the president.

It seems that those that fear the office of the president might gain too much power are in the minority. Just look here in DU. It's full of rationalizations that whatever the president does is fine. Small war crimes are better than larger war crimes. All presidents commit war crimes so why not this one? He is only killing those that deserve it (which is a lie).

I agree with you. Seems there is not much we can do.

[JoePhilly]

22. I'll agree that Obama is "expanding" these powers when he invades a country for no

reason.

As for "those that fear the office of the president" you seem to think DU is the world. You might want to check in with the right wing ... they LOVED the idea of giving Bush such powers, and now they are TERRIFIED that Obama might use them.

As for war crimes ... was the Dresden bombing a war crime? Hiroshima? Nagasaki?

And yes, I'll argue size matters. Each of those were defended as OK because, while many died, they prevented "more" from dying. As did the WWII interment camps, apparently. Obama could Nuke Yemen, or not.

My point is simple ... no President is giving up such powers. And no Congress is going to take them back (they provided them in the first place).

And the next President, regardless of party, will not be giving them up.

[rhett o rick]

75. Whether or not dropping the bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were war crimes

is a discussion for another thread. It's hindsight but not 20/20. We are not in a traditional "war". There will always be terrorists. We need new rules. Had J. Edgar killer drones, he most likely would have used them on Martin Luther King Jr. who meets the definition of "terrorist" via the Patriot Act.

[leftyohiolib]

35. US Congress gave the Executive Branch - well then the president cant hold on to it if congress takes

it away - if they gave it couldnt they take it back

[JoePhilly]

40. Sure they could ... but they'll need to be able to overide the President's veto.

The President, any President, will be willing to take any power the Congress wants to give him. SO when they decide to give him power, he quickly signs that legislation.

But, if Congress tries to take power away from the President (any President), he will attempt to KEEP that power, using his veto power if needed.

The separation of powers is a constant tug of war. And rarely does any of the three branches hand power over to one of the other two willingly.

[leftyohiolib]

49. ok yea for some reason a veto of it nvr crossed my mind

[michigandem58]

8. An attack on America isn't reason enough for you?

So "citizenship" is blanket protection for those planning said attacks?

[Egalitarian Thug]

17. How many of those attackers were American (or Iraqi or Afghan for that matter), again?

[michigandem58]

18. You aren't that obtuse

Just because previous attacks didn't involve American citizens doesn't mean future attacks won't. But you knew that.

[Egalitarian Thug]

21. There have been many attacks on us committed by American citizens,

and when they happened, we used this thing called due process and jailed or killed them after going through this process to ensure that they were guilty.

Speaking of obtuse, how about the fact that every murder-by-drone makes a whole new bunch of people that hate us?

[JoePhilly]

23. We used due process because we had the ability to apprehend them.

[Egalitarian Thug]

29. Once we actually decided to, we found and killed OBL, but we can't grab

Joseph or Achmed because he's just too clever or slippery? But we can find him from a video feed in Floriduh.

Do you ever think about what you believe?

[JoePhilly]

42. You might want to read up on these events.

Obama had the option of killing OBL with a drone strike.

Obama decided to take the added risk of sending the Seal Team in only because it was critical to ensure that we did in fact kill OBL, and not just some lower level terrorists.

Obama is not going to risk the lives of SEALs on every occasion.

Do you ever think about the reality, and the danger, of putting boots on the ground?

[Egalitarian Thug]

46. So, if not drones, special forces are the only option...

It must be very limiting to think in terms of absolute binary all the time.

FFS, this and every other major nation has successfully carried out legal action against suspects in other nations for decades, centuries. Everybody but us still does.

So let me ask you this, what is your limit for excusing the inexcusable? Do you even have one? And what will your reaction be when, say Russia, decides that someone they feel is guilty of some crime against the state is "impossible" to get to takes out a small office building in Philadelphia to kill him?

[JoePhilly]

59. Is that really the best you have?

Clearly, instead of Drones, we could use cruise missiles, special forces, or hell, let's send in a tank brigade. There are a variety of reasons to select one over another depending on the situation.

If you are honest, you'd agree that the selection of drones limits the risk to US troops, and also limits the number of other causalities. A Using a Seal team has more risk for our troops but might have less collateral damage. A cruise missile would take out more civilians than a drone. And a tank brigade will require large amounts of support troops on the ground.

Your claim about how other nations have "successfully carried out legal action against suspects in other nations for decades, centuries" is bullshit. If you were right, the Taliban would have handed over OBL 2 days after 9/11, rather than helping to hide him.

And the last person to try to scare me with a reference to Russia was a tea bagger. The key difference is that the US government can police those in this country. We are a functioning state, as is Russia. If there is a Russian here who they want, we might be willing to give that person to them. Our governments can work that out without attacks.

The places where the US is using drones are places where the existing governments can't, or won't, help control these folks. That is not the case between the US and Russia.

[Egalitarian Thug]

67. Wow. I had hoped (I see now that it was forlorn) that my chide might nudge you into thought.

Your perspective is terrifying in that it is apparently shared by more than a couple of others even here.

There are options that have nothing to do with the military. No missiles, troops, tanks, or bombs required. Terrorism is a tactic. The military cannot defeat a tactic. This nation was founded by terrorists. Parliament declared them such many times.

The Taliban did offer to hand over OBL, just not to us or in the way shrub wanted. And if you believe that other nations don't deal with these cases in completely different ways that we do, you just don't know what the hell you're talking about nor do you want to as hundreds, perhaps thousands, of examples are easily found.

Finally, if you're not imaginative enough to understand that Russia was simply an example of any powerful, technologically advanced nation on earth, there is little point in trying to carry on a conversation with you.

[michigandem58]

24. Due process isn't always practical

when you are dealing with someone overseas. They're often outside the reach of traditional means of enforcement and justice.

[Egalitarian Thug]

30. See #29

[rustydog]

82. This nation's conscience, moral character,belief in justice for all

Must be held and on display no matter where your supposed, no SUSPECTED (not proven) enemy is located.
We put suspected Nazis on trial,convicted them and imprisoned and executed them.

But we are now so goddamn afraid of terrists (thanks GOP) that we are willing to throw out the window the unbelivably beautiful concept of innocent until PROVEN guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt.
You have leaders who are so afraid of their incompetence, they want to simply say something is so and then act on that possibly deeply flawed suspicion. Due process must be applied especially when one thinks or fears it is not "practica" because that is when we prove the system works. It isn't the guaranteed conviction, it is the fucking process that is necessary.l

[truedelphi]

63. + 10,000.

[theaocp]

34. and drone attacks like what we're doing

is provoking these future attacks! When an grief-stricken father/brother/uncle is pushed into the open arms of terrorists, how much will we want to look in the mirror?

[rustydog]

70. First of all, read the goddamn justification!

There only needs to be a suspicion! The person if not afforded a judicial review. the person only has to be suspected by a "High ranking American official" and that official gives the kill order and a drone will snuff out an American life. They do not have prove that there is imminent danger! they don't have to prove the suspect is actually a terrorist sympathizer because they answer only to themselves...no review.

NOW, in America, our justice system is flawed, but we are tried and we get to file appeals if we are convicted.
You MUST know that there are people being released from prison regularly based on DNA evidence PROVING their innocence. some served DECADES in prison, but being alive, they used our highly touted and highly-valued system of justice. Fuck, we put Nazis on trial!
Although flawed, these "convicts" had a system of justice that actually freed innocent people. We will never know if Uncle Sam assasinated an innocent American, hence Extrajudicial killing...It is wrong.

[Gormy Cuss]

84. Yes it is.

Citizenship can be revoked for treason. After that, bring on the drones.

[madokie]

10. I'm a yellow dog, down and dirty, cut to the bone democrat myself

I help to pick leaders then get out of their way to let them lead. I don't always agree and if it hurts enough I'll not vote for that person again but I won't second guess them especially when it comes to life or death whether it be my son or your son, it matters not.
You have to realize that the people making the decisions have a whole different picture to look at than we do.

[FredStembottom]

15. But, as an American,

You are not supposed to do that.

The American ideal is an educated, involved citizenry that checks constantly on it's leaders.

[Lionessa]

19. Exactly! There's nothing patriotic about being an ignorant sheeple.

[frylock]

36. that's what people said about bush..

you don't know what the president knows. it was bullshit then, just as it's bullshit today, just as it will be bullshit when president jeb bush is calling the shots.

[patrice]

44. Precisely, in all but "get out of the way". Why are we engaging in that vote thingee, unless we

intend to hire someone to DO A CERTAIN JOB WITH THE TOOLS PROVIDED TO DO THAT JOB, tools all-of-which we the people do not, cannot, have access to. However, we do have access to SOME of the tools and we need to take up our appropriate responsibilities in that regard, we need to use ALL of our own tools, relative to the collaborative effort known as the USA (NOT necessarily and exclusively political parties of ANY stripe).

Part of our problem is that so many of us are so far after the fact, too many "got out of their way" toooooooooo far out of their way, for waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too long and now THAT set of facts has generated some very real dangers, which would become even more oppressive if we ignore our responsibilities for those too.

[Victor_c3]

53. true true true

Guantanamo bay is a perfect example. Based on what I know and my values I believe it should be closed. Obama said that he'd close it before he went into office. Then, when he got into office, he stopped that talk. He became aware of something that the rest of us don't know and isn't moving to close it for a reason.

[rustydog]

83. Just because you may be stifled by distance and maybe this sticky little thing called PROOF

There is no excuse for siding with this or any Administration that advocates they have the legal right to execute, without evidence, bothersome trial or any review, an AMERICAN CITIZEN they think may be a threat to America.

"Proof?, we don't need no stinkin' proof!"
Kill him/her. Go into Oslo where they are hiding and murder them in the name of a very fearful America! Fuck the justice system that tried and convicted Nazis, the Unibomber, the DC sniper and how many others?

You do not just pack your morals in the back closet and pull them out when you vote! You have to use your voice and stop the insanity. Nixon resigned in shame once the uproar got loud enough.

We rolled over and still allow torture and extrodinary rendition (because they are grabbing terrists!) We as a nation are capable of being so much better than this.

It is our responsibility to "second-guess" them every single day! They work for us and for the interests of this nation. WE are the nation, and they answer to us every day, not just on election day.

[madokie]

85. Hey look I voted for the man three times now

and the reason is because I trust him. I have no idea as to exactly how this is all playing out but if my hunch is right I'd say that many here are simply throwing shit up against the wall to see what sticks.

I don't work that way, sorry

I've read more bullshit here lately than I care to admit. You want to believe what you want to believe and thats fine with me but don't expect me to believe something just because someone here says its so.

[Autumn]

11. I am loyal to my dogs and horse and my family

I am a Democrat and I owe no loyalty to this Democratic party.

[Victor_c3]

26. yup. As a country we are great for saying that we stand for one thing then doing the exact opposite.

Just look at our history for great examples. The Philippine islands is a great example.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. I am a Democrat and wasn't loyal to LBJ and his war, nor am I to Obama and his war.

[patrice]

38. I can respect that if you can respect that for SOME of us it isn't loyalty to war. It is loyalty

to the fact that what HAS happened, what is happening, and what WILL happen to people matters, so we must take responsibility for what is happening, ESPECIALLY if we have a history in the conditions that brought all of it about.

We HAVE been fucking up real bad because of this war-happy ($$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$) culture of ours. That HAS caused some things to happen. I very much wish we could "just take our ball and go home" and whatever happens as a result of our withdraw from wherever will be the "right" thing.

However, just like our derivative poison, in the geopolitical financial world, that zero-sum kind of withdraw would not be right. When you have "raped" people in various ways, there's a price to pay. Hopefully we can pay the legitimate price for our crimes abroad and THEN "take our ball and go home".

I know there are legitimate risks in what I am proposing, but so is NOT doing it, so which course is the greater risk? I don't know that either, but I think it's a BETTER idea to try to figure all of that out with those whom we have affected abroad, than it is to not try to identify the relative risks of various courses of action, that would be the various risks of doing or not doing certain things.

Just fyi, I'm not demanding that you reply with some assent to the mutual respect that I mention in my Reply title:. I don't require that you even reply at all, if you don't want to. I just simply want to address the mistakes (or mischaracterizations) of the perspective which I have sketched here. SOME people who support drone projects are not doing that out of loyalty to war or to political party.

SOME of us are trying to focus on what people ARE experiencing and why and what the history of our responsibilities has been in all of that, with the hope of giving our victims a new chance against their own indigenous oppressors, some of whom were even our allies in our previous crimes. And, unfortunately, it appears that we must do that without the assistance of the U.N. or of the World Court, because both of those bodies are mortally opposed by many of the most active opponents of drone projects.

[librabear]

47. You're rationalizing.

[patrice]

54. When did the RATIONAL become bad???

[bobduca]

79. When your rationalizations replace your convictions and ethics

When you accept the lie of the War on Terror
when its actually just another purpose-built rationalization by Disaster Capitalism to justify more extraction of wealth from the commons.

Being 'rational' and 'rationalizing' are different words with the same root but different meaning.

I think folks who used to be against this policy in a previous administration, worked hard to get Obama in office are experiencing this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-purchase_rationalization with respect to difficult policies like this.

[patrice]

87. So YOU are the judge of my convictions and ethics. Tell me why you are not a fascist, please. nt

[bobduca]

90. Only when you stop beating your wife nt

[patrice]

92. Bullshit. Please answer the question. By your previous post, AN OBSERVABLE EVENT, you appear to be a

fascist to me. Now, tell me why I am wrong.

[patrice]

88. Just because an ethical decision is DIFFERENT from yours, that does not NECESSARILY, rationally,

mean that it is bad.

[patrice]

89. DIFFERENCE =/= Evil unless one is a fascist. nt

[patrice]

91. Isn't one of the biggest problems of conviction & ethics in the USA the fact that too many of us

have been delegating our personal individual moral authority and its consequent responsibilities to others? Isn't that very fact how we invaded and occupied an INNOCENT country, Iraq, and killed many thousand of people in the process?

How is it possible to say, "Afghanistan = ethically acceptable, but, Iraq not"? Whether you hold this position or not, millions of others do, including our soldiers. Are all of those people evil?

[patrice]

93. PRETENDING that two words with the SAME root have ABSOLUTELY different & unique semantic

Last edited Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:23 PM - Edit history (1)

references suggests that someone doesn't know how language actually, concretely/neurophysiologically, works.

If language worked the way that wikipedia thinks it does, it wouldn't work at all.

BTW, are you aware that it is widely recognized that wikipedia is written by people with biased agendas of one type or another. It's really pretty hilarious to see people who use the word "Orwellian" refer to wikipedia. Personally, especially in regards to this absurd claim about semantics, I don't think some people who use wikipedia would know Big Brother if he handed their thoughts directly to them and then punished anyone who didn't tow the line by excluding them from their clique.

Let me suggest a better source for you when you want to talk about words and what they mean; please try The Oxford English Dictionary, unabridged, of course.

[patrice]

94. If what you are saying about language were true, Noam Chomsky would be a nobody. nt

[patrice]

55. When did it become bad to ANALYZE specific experiences & situations logically & decide based onthat?

[patrice]

31. You may choose your own risks. You do not have the right to choose other people's risks for them.

[patrice]

32. You especially do not have the right to choose other people's risks for them when it appears that

you assume that there are no risks, or that all risks from whatever persons, doing WHATEVER, involved in whatever, with WHOMEVER are ALL of equal probability.

Just because others have made Plausibly Deniable "mistakes", or outright LIED about what the risks of X are, that does not mean that the various degrees, or strengths, of different probabilities cannot be identified with some better expectations of validity. When the difference between probabilities is a matter of human lives, including those of our soldiers and police, that calculation is a worthy thing for any authentically collaborative effort to engage in:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022320972#post103

[adieu]

33. I'm not conflicted

It's wrong and it's unconstitutional. Wrong is wrong. No if, ands or buts.

[patrice]

41. Yep! And EACH person is FREE to identify & commit freely to right and/or wrong as EACH KNOWS it.

You have no right to impose your "Constitutional" rights and wrongs on anyone else.

What IS the Constitution for? ***IF*** freedom (for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) means anything, it must be that EACH person chooses, commits, and then lives with the consequences of each person's own choices. I don't make my CHOICE your choice and you have no right to make your choice my choice. Each of us must be as free as possible to make his/her own authentic choices, anything else is fascism and I'm sure that you oppose fascism, don't you?

People aren't free ONLY to agree with you or me.

[woo me with science]

45. +1000000 ...Thank you. nt

[patrice]

56. k, so you are an absolutist, not a rationalist. You claim a "right" to determine what

is right or wrong for others by some standard that is absolute and unchangeable and to which ALL persons must submit.

Please, I am honestly asking you why that isn't fascism. Please explain.

[patrice]

58. Are you claiming a "right" to determine the RISKS of death that other people face? & if so, by

virtue of what? What gives you the "right" to make that kind of choice for other people?

I look forward to your answer.

[patrice]

62. If so, please inform us when we voted that responsibility to you. nt

[frylock]

37. i suspect that you, and many others, won't be as conflicted when the repubs are back in control

[totodeinhere]

50. That's a cheap shot. There is nothing in the OP's comment that even remotely suggests that they want

the Republicans back in control. The OP has legitimate concerns about drone attacks as many of us do.

[frylock]

73. i never suggested that, but to believe the repubs will never have the white house again..

is naïve, at best. then we'll see just how conflicted folks are about this issue.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

39. The Right Wing is claiming the U.N. is behind it....

I guess the black guy isn't scary enough for them anymore.

[xchrom]

43. 'government' & 'government officials' act badly all the time.

That's why 'we' expect resitrictions on their behavior and loads of Sunshine.

It's disgusting to 'excuse' any administrations' extra legal behavior.

[patrice]

52. Imposing restrictions, and expecting that alone will meet the needs, most often fails, but you

probably didn't mean to imply that we should just get the restrictions right and that's all that we need to do.

Laws are inherently imperfect; unless you're going to try to write a perfect restriction/law/regulation for each and EVERYTHING, ALL contingencies, you have to accept the fact that rules/restrictions can be manipulated to the advantage of those inclined to do so and if we pretend that isn't happening (and fail to write yet another perfect law/regulation - or - at least be AWARE of what is going on) then the bending of the more or less perfect law/regulations will be secret and very possibly to the advantage of those who do not have our most collaborative best interests as their goals. Our responsibilities, therefore, have to do with making rational decisions about how and why all of that is done, to PARTICIPATE in our own governance much much much more than we have.

[xchrom]

66. Imperfect they may be - but laws, restrictions, etc

Are what we have to work with.

And - depending on bureaucrats doing their job - they have been known to do a damn fine job of keeping officials in line.

[patrice]

69. I'm not proposing that we just throw them all out. Personally, I think, when I say we need to

be more diligent and active and use more of the tools at our disposal to participate in our own governance and follow through more, being active, to me, includes active thinking, kind of like what I just sketched here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022324006#post10 and one of the reasons I support this kind of dialectic is that it might produce the best there is in people.

Do you know who Buckminster Fuller was? e.g. Synergistics? & "I seem to be a verb". It's a process view that also was carried into the work of folks like Edward Deming http://deming.org/index.cfm?content=66 who tried to revolutionize auto production in the USA, got laughed out of the country, whereupon he went to Japan, they loved him and the rest is history about how they kicked our butts in that field. It's all about quality development as a process and it can be applied to anything in which those involved wish to make that kind of effort. Laws shouldn't be thrown away; they could be viewed from more of a process perspective.

I have said this elsewhere about the Constitution. Some people are making the same mistake with the Constitution that others made with and which KILLED the Bible. It's as though the most authentic meanings are being thrown away and we are struggling over whose version of the carcass gets deified. Like peeling a banana and throwing away the food and then making a God out of the peel.

In regards to the Constitution, I occupy the same position that the great American Buddhist Alan Watts used to say about religion and churches and such. He said that the objective of any TRUE religion/church should be to make itself obsolete. It's probably a little tooooooooooooo early in our development as a nation, but that's what I think about the Constitution and law in general. All of that should establish the conditions in which people, each one, develops his/her own free autonomy so fully that regulation is as un-necessary as it can possibly be. I know that sounds a little Libertarian (but then I am a Liberal or Leftie Libertarian), but it's different from our current crop of Libertarians in that they want to pretend that whatever that costs anyone and everyone right NOW is just fine and, I'm very sorry actually, I cannot agree with that. And a basic reason I can't agree with that is that, by my best intuitive guess, IT WILL FAIL, resulting only in MORE oppression and all of the likely unsustainable LOSSES that that will generate.

[truedelphi]

68. Or as a very wise woman stated today:

"Indefinite detention without trial is used to suppress dissent by dictators. It's the type of oppressive executive power that our Constitution was written to prevent."

Dr Jill Stein

Apparently many people here don't mind that we no longer have a President, we have either an executive Puppet, or a dictator, depending on how much power a person judges the man Obama to actually possess. When the cycle continues, and we have a Republican President, then they will suddenly mind the way that so much power has consolidated at the top, that we as a people have been deprived of habeus corpus, and other essential rights of a free people that are too numerous to list.

Back in 2008, there was a young black man running for the nation's highest office, and he said that upon his election, he would: Revise the Patriot Act to increase oversight on government surveillance.


"As president, Barack Obama would revisit the PATRIOT Act to ensure that there is real and robust oversight of tools like National Security Letters, sneak-and-peek searches, and the use of the material witness provision."

I have no idea where that young man ended up - he doesn't resemble in the least the man now in office.

[Skittles]

57. you'll have to forgive the swooners

they know not what they do

[patrice]

61. Stereotyping is such an impressive thinking skill. nt

[neffernin]

60. If there's one thing to say

it is that it's too easy to bunch up everything into one category. It is for this reason I consider myself an independent. Having everything be black and white, democratic vs. republican, social programs and regulations vs. free market; there's a whole spectrum in the middle that is ignored.

These drone strikes aren't honestly any different than any of our foreign occupations or excursions. I don't necessarily believe in isolationism but I think its more than a bit egotistical for us to violate other countries sovereignty in such ways as this as it leads to people hating us which is completely counter productive. Sure, I am glad to see OBL no longer in action. But imagine if Pakistan used their military to hunt down someone in our country unannounced?

Furthermore, killing leaders does very little to quash a group so dedicated. It may hurt them as a whole but it also further radicalizes them. Take the Mexican drug cartels for example, Mexico declared its war on drugs and took on the 4-5 cartels. It managed to capture leaders and figureheads. An unintended consequence was cartels breaking up into smaller cartels, and at one point the amount of cartels was up fivefold. Some of the stronger cartels took on weaker cartels to gain their territory and the result was tons and tons of deaths in the streets. Maybe as a whole the cartels are now weaker, but at the cost of the security and safety of much of the country.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

64. When you continually show me that violence is the answer to our problems

by your actions, what are you teaching me?
Would you want me to use those teachings against you?

[donnasgirl]

65. My hats off to you

rustydog i finally believe there is real democrats left,THANK YOU

[woo me with science]

71. K&R

[WillyT]

72. K & R !!!

[woo me with science]

74. kick

[Spider Jerusalem]

77. I dunno, personally I think it would be nice to see some consistency of principle from some people..

who apparently had not much of a problem with the use of drone strikes against Al Qaeda members as long as it was just foreigners being targeted; I'm not really sure why a terrorist with American citizenship deserves different treatment to one without--if we grant the underlying presumption that we are in fact talking about people who are actively engaged in Al Qaeda-related activities in Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere, which, if you read the white paper, you'd see we actually were, since it specifies "persons who present an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States", and furthermore persons who cannot be captured. What we are talking about is not assassination. We are talking about military targets and taking out enemy combatants. Someone on the Northwest Frontier engaged in carrying out cross-border strikes against US forces in Afghanistan, for instance? Is by definition an enemy combatant, regardless of what passport they may hold; and the logistics of capturing such a person are not feasible given the terrain and dangers involved.

How I look at it: the US is involved in military operations against a non-state organisation whose members may or may not include people with American citizenship. We're talking about a trans-national, ideologically driven, non-state actor; one can question the effectiveness of the military operations, or the need for them, but their existence at this point in time is an established fact. Hostile forces continue to attack American (and British) troops in Afghanistan. Use of drones in this situation is an effective means of targeting the enemy without expending human resources (and the government of Pakistan may tacitly approve or accept the use of drones, but they would probably not be too thrilled with special forces teams conducting their own retaliatory cross-border raids).

[Efilroft Sul]

78. Cheers to you, rustydog!

President Obama could eat a baby in a nationwide televised press conference and his fan club on D-Yoo would gush how he had the courage to go before the American people and do the hard but right thing. Besides, the baby probably, likely, maybe could grow up to threaten our national security, and the danger had to be put down immediately. Time is of the essence, and due process could cost other Americans their lives, man!

Sure, the above example is absurd. But it's not as absurd as defending the indefensible, and so many people whom I thought stood for ideas and ideals during the Bush regime are allowing themselves to be led down the primrose path to being politically compromised. Then again, maybe they let that happen to themselves long before the Justice Department memo surfaced.

It's still wrong, and as you said, it all flies in the face of what we supposedly should stand for as Americans.

[liberal_at_heart]

80. I agree. The democratic party threw hissy fist when George W. Bush used

executive power in this way. Now all of a sudden it is okay. It is not okay just because Obama is our President.

[Demo_Chris]

86. Bush claimed the right to spy and torture, Obama added killing Americans to the list

What's the NEXT guy going to add?

[woo me with science]

81. kick