WaPo/ABC Poll from last Feb, 77% of Liberal Democrats support use of Drones

[stevenleser]

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-02-08/politics/35445649_1_drone-program-support-for-drone-strikes-drone-policy

.
.
.
Obama has also relied on armed drones far more than Bush did, and he has expanded their use beyond America’s defined war zones. The Post-ABC News poll found that 83 percent of Americans approve of Obama’s drone policy, which administration officials refuse to discuss, citing security concerns.

The president only recently acknowledged the existence of the drone program, which some human rights advocates say operates without a clear legal framework and in violation of the U.S. prohibition against assassination.

But fully 77 percent of liberal Democrats endorse the use of drones, meaning that Obama is unlikely to suffer any political consequences as a result of his policy in this election year.

Support for drone strikes against suspected terrorists stays high, dropping only somewhat when respondents are asked specifically about targeting American citizens living overseas, as was the case with Anwar al-
Awlaki, the Yemeni American killed in September in a drone strike in northern Yemen.
.
.
.

[rustydog]

1. Then it MUST be a good thing. right?

Wasn't slavery accepted until people developed the courage to change it?
Drone strikes are wrong. Drone assasinations of American Citizens goes against every single thing our country stands for.

[gholtron]

53. What if the American citizen is a member

Of a terrorist organization that Congress declared war on.

[tblue]

2. Supporting drones kinda makes you not 'liberal'

IMHO.

[markpkessinger]

54. Agreed -- IMNSHO n/t

[JaneyVee]

3. Just read that a legal framework will soon be proposed in the House & Senate

Wonder what that vote tally will look like.

[MotherPetrie]

4. Supporting a drone policy "which administration officials refuse to discuss"

Sounds about right for the "I love MyPresident" crowd. Rationalization isn't limited to Freepers.

[Dawgs]

5. What the fuck does this have to do with anything?

Stop cheerleading!

[dballance]

6. That's Very Disappointing.

It makes me wonder if people just are not educated about the horrible things we doing with them. Like all the innocents we kill as collateral damage to get one or two terrorists. Thereby creating more terrorists through our actions. So much of the US citizenry is oblivious to anything outside their own little daily life bubble. They're not political and don't read and post on sites like DU or FreeRepublic either.

I'm sure everyone has forgotten by now we (and I do me "we" because "we" voted in the administration that's using drones) killed a US citizen and his teen-aged son without charges, without a trial allowing him to defend himself before a jury.

[NOVA_Dem]

7. It's not about the tool (drones) it's the justification for using it.n/t

[cherokeeprogressive]

8. This goes beyond that. This is about the death penalty.

Not the kind of death penalty imposed by a so-called jury of your peers, but a death penalty imposed by a "high ranking government official" based on what they believe.

I find it shocking that so many DUers suddenly support the death penalty even though no physical evidence needs to be shown to a jury.

Kind of funny now, looking back on George Bush's war on terror and being told it was immoral illegal and ill-advised.

That an American citizen can be sentenced to death with out a jury seeing a shred of evidence is something I cannot get behind.

[Dawgs]

11. DU is a different place.

It used to be more than just cheerleading for anything with a D next to it.

[stevenleser]

13. DU is more critical of Drones than Democrats as a whole as my DU poll in GD suggests

So, no, DU is definitely not a cheerleading place. It is more critical of Democrats than the general population of Democrats.

[Dawgs]

90. Again. The use of Drones and this most recent policy on drone strikes of Americans are not the same.

We're going to have to disagree on whether DU is for cheerleaders. Been here since 2004 and remember when honest discussion among all types of Democrats was allowed and encouraged. Not so much anymore.

[NOVA_Dem]

14. I think it's about defending Obama at all costs..

These same people are quick to throw congressional dems under the bus to defend the President.

[aikoaiko]

9. Support the use of drones? Sure. But to do what.

I'd like to see how the question was worded.

[WinkyDink]

10. Would "77% of Liberal Democrats" support President Romney's use, I wonder.

[Cha]

12. Thanks for the perspective, Steven.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. I guess that means killing people without trial is now a "liberal" value.

How very...humane? practical? progressive? Or, just plain hypocritical?

[stevenleser]

16. Or we disagree with your interpretation of it. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Of what? Killing? Liberal? or "Value"?

Your OP infers that "liberals" approve killing people without trial.

What's your interpretation of what's actually happening? Are the drones not killing people? Are the people being killed getting trials? Are the people approving not "liberals"?

[stevenleser]

20. You have decided to interpret it that way. I see it the way the Magistrate explains it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2321830

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. So, where's the part about killing people without trial being "liberal"?

It's kind of like when most "liberals" supported LBJ on Vietnam....until they didn't.

[stevenleser]

25. Phrasing the question that way would make it a push poll. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. OK. Let's try it this way.

Do you support killing people without trial?

Are you a liberal?

[stevenleser]

35. That is a separate issue. All Liberals and Democrats would answer the same way.

1. No

2. Yes.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. I guess that makes Obama not a liberal.

Because he not only favors killing without trial but is doing so.

[stevenleser]

41. Nope, he would answer the same way the way you framed the question. nt

[Yavin4]

66. Did Southern Soldiers during the Civil War Get Trials or Were They Killed?

When taken prisoner, were they brought before a judge or thrown into a holding cell for combatants?

[graham4anything]

36. LBJ was the greatest. I supported him then and know. He would have beaten Nixon.

stupidest thing democratic protesters did was put up an inferior candidate HHH who had the baggage, but not the achievements and of course HHH lost.

(and most forget- HHH would have been most likely, the nominee had RFK still been alive.
It was NOT a forgone conclusion as ones memory is clouded with).

any president would have done the same thing in Vietnam
(as JFK hired Bob McNamara, had JFK still been president, it goes without saying McNamara would have done the same thing).

and if people were actually around then, losing was NOT an option in the war. NO president at that time, in the heat of the cold
war would have done anything different.

but-
ONLY LBJ would have used his capital to sign the voting rights, civil rights acts.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. He carried on a genocidal war against people that posed no threat to this country.

He was in charge of killing people without cause, unless you think that looking "tough on Communism" was a valid cause.

I voted, as a Democrat, for the Peace & Freedom Party in '68 and would do so again.

"any president would have done the same thing in Vietnam"

So, I guess that makes what Nixon did right. What Bush did right in Iraq. And, makes the "surge" right for Obama in Afghanistan.

So, good PR trumps common decency. "Tough on terra'" allows the killing of civilians and unlimited power for the president...especially if he's a Democrat.

Our views on killing, justice, and democracy are at variance.

[graham4anything]

42. LBJ would have beaten Nixon in 1968. And Nixon sabatoged the peace negotiations.

Eisenhower started the war. It wasn't LBJs war.
But losing wasn't an option then.

as for the others, if you don't like Bush, dont elect Jeb in 2016. Vote for Hillary.
the answer is very clear.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. Losing may not have been an option (politically) but it was a reality.

The war was lost before LBJ left office. Humphrey was going to carry it on. Nixon did.

We had a choice between the war party and the war party.

Some of us chose neither.

[WinkyDink]

63. No, LBJ would not have won; he knew the political calculus then better than you now.

[graham4anything]

71. LBJ vs. Nixon head to head, LBJ would have won. Ugly match, but LBJ would have won

HHH barely lost and he was a bad candidate.
LBJ would have done better than HHH, because LBJ was able to campaign on his accomplishments, while all HHH had was the albatross of Vietnam.

Eugene McCarthy (like George McGovern) may have been helleva nice people, but neither was ever seriously considered as being able to win.

And of course, you forget something-democratic votes were split by Wallace.
LBJ would have negated Wallace and that alone would have led to victory.

(convienient to forget the racism Wallace brought to the democratic party.)

[WinkyDink]

62. Kind of like Iraq and Afghanistan.

[SomethingFishy]

34. And his explanation is valid as long as you blindly trust your government.

And as we all know our government would never lie to us. Would never do anything like start a war with a country that posed no threat to us. Would never kill anyone who didn't deserve it.

What happens if a Tea Bagger wins the next election and decides anyone speaking out against them on DU is an "insurgent" and a risk to national security?

The people I see agreeing with these types of policies all seem to have an amazing amount of trust in a government that has blatantly cheated, stolen, and lied to us. While I don't think Obama would abuse this power I have no doubt there are tons of "elected officials" who would.

[stevenleser]

60. Blind trust is not required, no.

If you believe that what is going on between the US and Al Qaeda constitutes a defacto war, there is no trust to give.

There is a conflict between us and them that is governed by the rules of war. Anyone not in Al Qaeda doesnt get targeted. Anyone who is in Al Qaeda is a legitimate target.

[sadalien]

69. al Qaeda is (insert insugency group du jour here)

You can't have an enemy that you just make up on the fly.

[SomethingFishy]

70. Even if I did believe this was a war, and I don't,

Blind faith is required no matter what. Unless you are in the middle of it you have no idea if what you are being told is true or not. When they bomb some "suspected insurgents" does that make you happy? I see those words used all the time "suspected insurgents". What the fuck does that even mean? Am I a "suspected insurgent" for typing this?

I see pictures of bloody and dead children and am told that this "collateral damage" is necessary to the security of the United States. And what? I'm just supposed to take their word for it? That there is no other way to survive this "war on terror"? That we cannot win without "collateral damage"?

I'll say this again, blind faith is a requirement. How many people believed the Jessica Lynch "Rambo" story? How about Abu Grahib? How about the billions of missing dollars? Pat Tillman? Do you think had these stories not been exposed you would know the truth? Blind faith.


One last thing, If this is a war, you are not going to win this by killing terrorists. All killing terrorists does is create more terrorists.

[stevenleser]

80. Nope, that is not required at all.

I evaluate everything I see the government do, does it seem fishy, etc.

Well over 80% of us in this country want the government to try to interdict al Qaeda when that group is attempting to plan terrorist strikes against us.

It makes sense to me, for instance. That the drone strikes are happening in remote areas of Yemen and tribal areas of Pakistan. That is one check on what is happening. Drone strikes are not happening in Latin America, for instance. That's not blind faith.

There was a 911 investigations pointed blame for those attacks at Al Qaeda.
That's is check #2.

Bin Laden, who was the head of Al Qaeda, admitted blame in a video and said to avoid more attacks we had to all convert to Islam.
That is check #3.

All of a sudden this hardly seems blind or faith behind our insight into the attacks.

[SomethingFishy]

91. LOL.. Look I respect you and what you do but...

Your second example "There was a 911 investigations pointed blame for those attacks at Al Qaeda.
That's is check #2." Yes and after check number 2 we went and invaded Iraq, who had no real military capabilities, who had no WMD's, no yellowcake, and who at best had minimal Al Quaeda ties. Also we were told the war would pay for itself. How many government lies do I need to post before you admit that in every conflict there is some amount of blind faith in your government?

We will have to agree to disagree on this my friend.

[gholtron]

56. We are at war.

We didn't start this war. We didn't want this war and if we don't do anything to stop the enemy, then a hell of a lot more innocent people will die. Yes it's ugly no one wants it. It is a necessary way to fight a faceless border less evil enemy.

[WinkyDink]

64. Oh, pish. GMAB. Why not just say we're going to go after "the bad guys"?

[gholtron]

67. okay. We're going after the bad guys.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

75. The same was said of Vietnam.

[davidn3600]

17. That 77% may be Democrats, but they are certainly not liberal

[DearHeart]

59. Got that F'in Right!!

More likely to be "moderate" or "right-leaning" democrats, but certainly not "Liberals".

[whatchamacallit]

19. The old grey mare (donkey), she ain't what she used to be

Gotta love these vapid vox populi threads...

[cali]

21. Since when does majority opinion matter when it comes to

questions of right and wrong?

[stevenleser]

22. Well, a DU jury for one example.

I think this poll is important because it shows a lot of people do not see this issue in the terms that some DUers are painting it.

[cali]

23. That's rather a shabby comparison.

And I know you know that.

At the risk of sounding elitist, a lot of "liberal democrats" are simply partisan and likely not terribly well informed on this issue.

What do want to wager that if this was a republican president with the same policy, it would be 77% against?

[stevenleser]

27. That is an often repeated canard, it's not true. You are conflating Iraq and torture with drones.

Virtually everyone on DU disagreed with Bush on Iraq and Torture. The same cannot be said with drones or Afghanistan.

[graham4anything]

43. plus ten zillion

[cali]

47. That's an egregious misuse of the word canard.

I didn't mention Iraq. Now that's a canard.

Here's why your comparison of juries on DU to determine whether a post breaks the forum rules is so shabby:

1) It's hardly a life or death or constitutional issue.

2) It's not about morality at all. It's about whether someone is breaking the rules.

And the claim that I'm conflating Iraq and torture with targeted killings is absurd and, well, cheap. kind of sleazy. Not only did I not conflate the two, I never mentioned (or even thought of) the former.

Not a persuasive argument, Leser.

[stevenleser]

50. I stand by my earlier statement. You cannot come up with a single example.

You cannot come up with a single example of someone who was not in favor of drones under Bush, but is in favor of them now.

Again, you are conflating opposition to Iraq and Torture with opposition to drones.

[cali]

52. what? what? what?

You appear to be deliberately obtuse within this conversation. Drone use under bush was less understood and far less widespread. It was talked and written about less. Are you actually denying that partisanship plays a significant role in public opinion regarding issues?

And again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq and torture. Nada. Zip.

[Bonobo]

85. I disagree.

I do not think he is being intentionally obtuse.

[cherokeeprogressive]

83. So DU juries are an acceptable way of judging right from wrong?

You be funny.

[mike_c]

28. drones are not the issue...

...although maybe it's better to say that "Drones are ANOTHER issue." But your constant attempts to divert the discussion away from unilateral expansion of presidential power to subvert constitutional protections for American citizens, and onto drones, is disingenuous at best. Drones are just the vehicle by which constitutional rights have been suspended-- it's the erosion of constitutional protections from arbitrary and capricious harm by the government that is the real issue.

[NOVA_Dem]

31. Thank you! This is about Due Process and Assassinations of US Citizens...

by our gov't.

[graham4anything]

44. no it is not. the issue is drones. nothing else.

don't like Bush? Don't vote for Jeb in 2016. Vote for Hillary.
there are two choices.
a
b
there is no other choice.
unless one wants an election thrown like in 2000.

[stevenleser]

32. Who is doing the diverting depends on your perspective. I think it is you.

First off, it's my OP to discuss the poll. If you are discussing something else, you are the one who is diverting and threadjacking.

Second, what most reasonable people realize is that there is a difference of opinion on one key point.

- Do you think it is OK to consider our conflict with Al Qaeda and its affiliates a defacto war?

If the answer for you is yes, as it is with me, the Magistrate, and many others here, there is no power grab or extension of powers, there is no Constitutional issue, etc. I'm sure you are familiar with the rules of war so I wont belabor the point by listing them. If we are at war with Al Qaeda, the President can use drones, tanks, planes, dreadnaughts, carriers, etc.

If you are of the belief that there is no way our conflict with Al Qaeda can constitute a defacto war, then you are arguing abuse of power, Constitutional rights issues, etc.

Of course, that takes all the hyperbole out of the equation and I have a feeling you wont like that.

[SomethingFishy]

29. LMFAO.. yeah.. I'm sure all these liberals will feel the same way

when their house or children become "collateral damage"...

We sure are big and brave when it comes to killing people 3000 miles away.

[stevenleser]

33. Easy remedy for that, right? Don't move to Yemen and sign up with Al Qaeda. nt

[SomethingFishy]

37. Yeah I don't plan on it. However within the next 5 years

drones will be littering the skies over the USA. Who's to say your house won't be next? You are cheering the opening of Pandora's box. I hope it doesn't come back to bite us in the ass.

But eventually... it will.

[JoePhilly]

49. And that's when the FEMA Camps come into play.

[SomethingFishy]

58. Yeah ok.

Because what I said has everything to do with paranoid fringe fantasies about FEMA internment camps.. You better answer your other line, I think Alex Jones is calling...

[Fire Walk With Me]

30. If 77% of Liberal Democrats walked off a pier, would you? (facepalm)

I say use or possession of drones should be added to the Geneva Conventions as a War Crime.

[Comrade Grumpy]

38. Well, I guess I'm either in the minority or not a liberal Democrat.

[RoccoR5955]

46. Funny, they never asked me.

As I am not in favor of drones.
They are just another form of terrorism.

[LittleBlue]

48. And if Bush was president, 90% would oppose it

And when the next Bush comes along, all those gullible fools will say "hey wait, maybe this was a bad idea."

What a sad bunch of fucking tools

[stevenleser]

51. Nope, that is an oft repeated canard.

Those of us who are not against drones, were never against drones.

I was and am against the Iraq war and torture. That hasnt changed.

[ecstatic]

57. good point nt

[WinkyDink]

61. And some of us who were, are.

[Logical]

65. LOL, you believe that? If Romney did this we would be up in arms. Nice try. n-t

[stevenleser]

76. Nice try yourself. If it's so obvious, provide an example

Show one DUer who was not in favor of drones when Bush was in office but who is now.

[JI7]

72. no they woudln't, many supported him going into Afghanistan , but didn't support Iraq

[Kolesar]

55. Why did we use a drone to kill Anwar al-Awlaki?

'Cuz we couldn't get in there with napalm!

[Cali_Democrat]

68. Well that's disheartening

I would hope that more Dems would oppose drone strikes.

[marmar]

73. Just proves how worthless the contemporary definition of "liberal" has become.

[lumberjack_jeff]

74. "Liberal" = "Obama bumper sticker" n/t

[stevenleser]

77. That's one interpretation. The other is more likely.

That most people simply want their government to interdict terrorist groups planning to hurt them, and that is not influenced by ideology.

[marmar]

89. "to interdict terrorist groups planning to hurt them"

That propaganda doesn't sound any fresher than it did a decade ago.

[Number23]

78. Killing them (AS USUAL) with the facts

Though I'm not sure why you even bother...

[B Calm]

79. In Vietnam, I wonder how many

of our troops could have been saved if we had drones. . .

[Egalitarian Thug]

88. In Vietnam, if we'd had more liberal Democrats, about 99% of the eventual total KIA.

Or hey, how about this? If Eisenhower had just sent three or four nukes into the North we could have made it 100%.

[ScreamingMeemie]

81. That is heartbreaking and nauseating all at the same time.

[Apophis]

82. I'm part of the 23% who doesn't support it.

[fujiyama]

84. A limited and judicious use of drones is inevitable and can be warranted

It certainly is better than the alternative of invading countries.

The problem arises with this business of targeted killings of American CITIZENS. We afford our citizens constitutional rights of due process even in cases of treason, mutiny, and various capital crimes.

The legal reasoning of assassinating US citizens abroad is really perilous at best. I don't like the precedent it sets one bit. Sooner or later another republican administration will come along and use the same reasoning. We didn't like this kind of thing during Bush's term, and we shouldn't like it now.

And as I said, a limited use of drones can and should be part of a national security policy. With stateless actors killing innocents, we realistically should assume that our government will utilize such a technology. But if such a policy is to be executed, we need much stronger oversight from Congress, which has seemingly dropped the ball.

[BlueCheese]

87. The whole reason we have a Bill of Rights is to protect us from tyranny of the majority.

I'm pretty sure if we put it to a vote, the public would get rid of most of the rights of the accused, separation of church and state, and a lot of the freedom of speech and press. Flag-burning amendments regularly get 65 votes in the U.S Senate. Even in California they voted to make same sex marriage illegal. That the majority of the public is willing to allow the government to kill American citizens without trial does nothing to make it justifiable.