General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI am not a Democrat. I am a democrat. I oppose drone strikes.
As the title says I oppose drone strikes because I am a democrat. I believe in democracy, as pure as can be achieved while safeguarding certain individual "rights." I believe in rule of law and due process. I oppose drone strikes and all other forms extra-judicial punishment. In my mind they are nothing more than Bills of Attainder. If the Democratic Party continues to support and expand the Unitary Executive doctrine I cannot in good conscience continue to support them in the future. It is a line in the sand that we should not cross. We cannot allow the any President this kind of power. I will be watching the next presidential election cycle very closely. I hope the Democratic nominee will be someone with enough strength of conviction to vow to lay down these unconstitutional and undemocratic powers that have been granted to the current President under the Patriot Act and through the Unitary Executive doctrine.
A lot of people are fine with this power right now, but if this was President Romney doing this I am willing to bet a lot more people on this site would be opposed to it. There comes a time when you have to ask yourself do you believe in principles or do you believe in a party? If you can honestly say you would be fine with President Romney using drone strikes to kill U.S. citizens without trial then fine. I have a lot more respect for that person than the one one who changes his views based on who is in office.
Just to be clear this post is only dealing with the use of drones on U.S. citizens. The use of drone strikes against citizens of foreign countries raises a lot more issues we need to discuss, but I didn't want to cloud the issue in this thread. Though, simply for openness sake I will say that I oppose the use of drone strikes even on citizens of foreign countries.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)oppose drone strikes. And I will not change my stance on that, I don't care who is President.
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)I think it is a very dangerous road we are walking down.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)I believed that. Now it's America, land of the cowed and the home of a bunch of scared cowards who have bought into a political scare tactic that has us believing there is a boogie man under every bed. That is what neo cons have brought us to and who does it benefit? Not the American people, but a select group of people looking for power.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)This crap began between the two World Wars...think about that and how long these tactics have been eroding not only our freedoms, but any pretense to morality.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)And taught to kneel down and cover our heads in case of a nuclear attack. Seems our Country needs that boogie man cause we keep finding them everywhere. They use fear and patriotism to take our rights and shape "morality". But ones eyes eventually open.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)Then we are of an age, as they say. I, too, remember crouching under my desk in PS 176, Brooklyn NY.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)Cause you know those commies are going to drop the big one.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)I recently read what FDR's third term VP, Henry A. Wallace, wrote about American Fascism in 1944. I swear my blood froze in my veins.
Apophis
(1,407 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)I can't believe that its come to this.
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)A large portion of the population was willing to set aside certain Constitutional protections in the name of security and once you start down that road you never know where it will end.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)and now we seem to be in free fall.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)On knee jerk reaction of course I don't like to see this, but
That is why I support the President because I trust his judgement. He knows about a billion more things than I do on security. I don't think he is a dishonest man.
I believe he is doing what he can with all considerations. If someone has been on the President's back and dissing him since '08 I expect these people to accuse him of selling us all out and delivering us to more evil now with the Drones. He's already sold everyone out in every other way. So that alone kind of weakens the critique if it is coming from someone who has had a target of everything anti-Obama for years now. You can almost hear the lip smacking and drooling over this one.
This is why picking the right leader is so very important - is he/she going to use his best judgement, taking all into account.
I think Obama is the best choice to deal with these extraordinary challenges.
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)Even with those assumptions it is still very dangerous. A good man won't always be POTUS. Let's be realistic, eventually a right-wing Republican will gain the office and these powers will be in his hands. That is the danger with putting your trust in a good leader. Even if the leader is good he won't be the leader forever. You'll eventually get another George Bush or someone even worse and that person will have all of these powers and possible more depending on the way things go.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)I'm willing to bet there will be a strong possibility the next President will be a republican. God help us all. This is disgusting policy.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)and without any bystander casualties?
I am a bit late into this conversation, but has there been some suggestions of what should replace the drones that will guarantee target hit only?
Like it or not war is always the hardest on the innocent/non combats - it's been like that for all of history. I would like to see that changed and I know you and scores others would too.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)citizens without due process. No matter where they are at. Who deems an American or a group as a terrorist person or group? How much evidence is required to target an American citizen? Is there a court hearing first? Who decides? Where is the oversight? We as American have the right to due process and for a President to decide he has the power to decide those things is a very dangerous path to take. It's like a person has the power to be judge, jury and executioner.
Do I have trust that Obama would never abuse this? To a small degree I do. But Obama will be gone in four years and this power will linger on. Would you trust President Boehner or Bush or McCain or any Joe Blow off the street elected to the Presidency with this power?
The military use of drones in another can of worms. I think the war on terror is a BS war. Terrorism is a tactic, and you can not fight a war against a tactic. It's abstract. A war should be against a clear threat, otherwise you kill millions of people, ours and theirs to keep getting the number two guy, over and over again. You bankrupt the country to get a few criminals. You have to address the underlying problems and treat terrorists as the criminals they are. The arrest and incarceration of the terrorist who bombed the World Trade Center the first time worked. Timothy MCveigh was a terrorist, I lost a Sister in Law in the OKlahoma bombing , he was arrested tried and executed in a court of law. Due Process works, it's just that that fucker bush seized power and misused it and now here we are.
NoMoreWarNow
(1,259 posts)they increase terrorism. So, let's stop killing people, period.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)and it worries me too, and should worry everyone.
I don't know the right answers but if one of these targets, that happens to be a traitor american, does carry out some act of destruction on the US, and it was known he was a prime suspect for such, ... there would and should be a loud cry out about that - like what the Bush admin knew of Bin Laden. If George droned out Osama and prevented 911...
The No. 1 job of the CiC is to protect the people of the U.S. I believe Obama is doing this to the best of his ability.
too complicated for me.
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)There is no single word that defines me. Nor do I have a single, uniform opinion about the use of drones. I think they are useful weapons in the military arsenal, that have the potential to save the lives of many US military members. I also think they are misused at times.
In my 67 years, the most important thing I have learned is that no single definition fits anyone or any policy. Once I learned that, I was better able to understand the world around me.
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)Democratic Socialism sums up my views as well as complex views can be summed up in a few short words. I really like your last paragraph, because it is so true and often times we forget it.
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)Gregorian
(23,867 posts)War is a racket, and we're letting the military get away with murder.
And here is how it's done- Ignorance and fear.
My answer to the problem is get smart and get strong in consciousness.
DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE.
Bush ignored the August 6th PDB for a reason. I hated Bush because I knew he would begin war just as soon as he could find a way. The moment he put his hand on that bible I knew.
The planet is warming, population increasing, and we're fucking around with bombs. STUPID!
Catherina
(35,568 posts)born with a conscience that in no way can tolerate what's being done in our names, with the taxes earned by our hard work, without even a by-your-leave.
We're enslaved to a government that doesn't serve the people and is looting this entire earth and killing everyone who gets in its way. We've made a total mockery of democracy, human rights, peace and justice. We're the biggest warmonger on earth, killing people indiscriminately and now turning that on our own citizens based on some royal decree written on a memo. What happened to Congress? What happened to the people having Representatives? They made a mockery of that long ago but now, we've become so craven that world criminals and world criminal organizations know they're guaranteed near-total support from a certain segment of the population. Every 4 years, they just change who the support comes from but it's the same agenda being advanced.
Martin Luther King weeps from his grave.
"Define terrorism you imperialist fucks" - Marc McGowan aka ChunkMark
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)I've pointed out these actions remind me of Bills of Attainder which are forbidden in the Constitution. What is the difference from Parliament declaring you guilty of a crime without trial and the POTUS declaring you guilty of a crime without trial?
zeemike
(18,998 posts)We should have drawn the line in the sand when torture first came up...we all should have descended on DC in mass protest to insist that congress hold hearings and put a stop to it then.
But our leaders took it off the table and told us NO...we will do what we want so fuck you....and we meekly said OK.
And so not we have authorized it in their minds....and will continue and the will do even more...sky is the limit...even big brother is now possible.
Dollface
(1,590 posts)law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."
Winston Churchill
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)fasttense
(17,301 posts)I didn't approve of it when Nixon, Clinton, bush, or Obama did it. The President is NOT King. He is merely the executive who caries out the will of the people. He is NOT King nor should be given the power to be judge, jury and executioner.
Drones used against citizens is unconstitutional and Obama knows it. Does he have the moral strength to give up kingly powers? I fear America has stepped off the cliff and we are headed toward a totalitarian crash.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)...according to a recent Post-ABC News poll. And part of being democratic is recognizing that majority rules.
Especially when it's the overwhelming majority.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
ReRe
(10,597 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Bradical79
(4,490 posts)The author is giving their personal opinion on the ethical and legal validity of the strikes. I don't see how polls matter unless talking about a specific strategy of convincing people.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)white_wolf
(6,238 posts)Besides if you read my post you would have noticed this part "I believe in democracy, as pure as can be achieved while safeguarding certain individual "rights." Due process and trial by jury is one of those rights that shouldn't be up for majority vote.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)So you want everyone to ignore our consciences and be good Germans?
Thank God for the 10% back then and thank God for the 10% right now.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)The comparison was between the American public and the pre-WW2 German public. It's an apt comparison.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)....the poster to whom I responded the chance to correct my interpretation.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I was just engaging in discussion, on this discussion board. Good afternoon.
CheapShotArtist
(333 posts)if you only go by the general opinion of just this site. Personally, I'm one of the 83%. It's sad that those Americans got killed, but they were in places where they shouldn't be. At least by using drones, it means less casualties for our troops. There are no human pilots inside of drones that are in any immediate danger.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)NO DRONES!
SylviaD
(721 posts)100% agree with you especially this part:
"A lot of people are fine with this power right now, but if this was President Romney doing this I am willing to bet a lot more people on this site would be opposed to it."
I call those kinds of people 'HYPOCRITES' and you are right, they are legion. I for one was flabberghasted when President Obama continued some of Bush's policies and some of the SAME PEOPLE who had railed against the undemocratic and illegal Bush regime suddenly became as quiet as mice. Or, worse yet, they explicitly approved of the use of Bush regime tactics so long as a Democratic president was using them.
We are still in the extreme minority here, and by expressing yourself as you have here (and for being 100% right, btw) you should brace yourself for a lot of blowback.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)I do not want to be hit by a drone strike. I do not want random acts of violence committed in the name of this country.
I oppose war.
I oppose people killing people.
At the same time, I recognize that some really awful stuff becomes totally necessary sometimes. Sometimes we are threatened and need to act in violent ways.
So, am I opposed to all drone strikes under all circumstances? No.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)FiggyJay
(55 posts)I totally agree with you. Excellent post.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)Picture of Joe Biden for example and a picture of any Republican "would you trust this man or this man with drones" I kid of course.
My problem with this whole argument is the part where people are outraged that drones are used on US citizens. Shouldn't we be equally outraged if they are used on non US citizens? In some ways it is worse going into another country and killing people in that country. They have no obligations to the US government. As citizens of the world they would have the obligation to not kill other people. If they are trying to do that and are an imminent threat then I can see a dilemma. But, if they are just talking about the "evil USofA" and what they would like to do I can't see executing them just for that. If our criteria for bombing the crap out of people was just talking about the "evil USofA" and what they would like to do to over throw the government we would have to bomb Alabama. For the record I don't think bombing Alabama is a good idea.
In any case it is a complicated issue as far as security is concerned. Terrorism does exist. I just don't think we are taking the best approach against it on so many levels that this is just one more level that is wrong.
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)I mentioned this in the last paragraph of my post. I do oppose them on non U.S. citizens as well, but I wanted to keep this more focused on the current discussion revolving around extra-judicial killings of U.S. citizens.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)I am not sure if we should be equally outraged or more outraged when it's a non US citizen. Quite frankly I tend to hold US citizens more accountable for their behavior than non US citizens. If you are a citizen of this country then you have more of an obligation to this country. So, if you are planning a terror attack it seems a bit more wrong to me than someone from another country that might have a more legitimate claim to have been wronged by the US Government. But, don't get me started on the horrible way our government treats US Indians.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)terrorists? We need to kill civilians too, from a distance? Horse shit.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)I think we really should just pull back. It wouldn't mean terrorists have won. I think it would mean that we just don't want to kill innocent bystanders and we don't want any more invasions. Maybe we should just let the CIA handle the bad guys(if they aren't the bad guys themselves). It's really complicated (oil, the interests of the 1%) what we should do about national security(the interests of the 1%) but, maybe if we were more helpful instead of bombing the crap out of everything things would get better.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)strange7
(16 posts)Bills of Attainder is exactly what this is, and it is strictly outlawed in our Constitution.
unapatriciated
(5,390 posts)It would also seem our party platform disagrees too, since there are no checks and balances to assure us that this policy stays within our Constitution's guidelines.
http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform
This is a new technology that we control for now, five or ten years from now that will not be the case. What do we do then?
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)I ended my monthly donations to the party.
That truly is the only voice they listen to.