If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   "Five questions about Obama's Natl. Sec. address" Who did you drone? Why did you wait so long to tell us? Was Congress involved? Why won't you answer my questions? Hey, what's that buzzing noise overhead?   (politico.com) divider line 18
    More: Interesting, obama, Michael McCaul, National Archives  
•       •       •

676 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 May 2013 at 8:12 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-05-24 08:25:09 AM  
4 votes:
"2. On Gitmo closure: Does he mean it this time?"

Of course, it was Obama who refused to authorize funds for trials or the purchase of a new prison to relocate them to, not the pants shiatting cowards in Congress.
2013-05-24 11:22:59 AM  
2 votes:

mrshowrules: The only thing that gives me pause is that this is something that would have been done under Dubya.


WOULD have been done?
2013-05-24 11:03:18 AM  
2 votes:

qorkfiend: vygramul: neversubmit: qorkfiend: Nabb1: We are killing people from the sky because one branch of the government has unilaterally decidedbeen authorized by another branch of the government to determine that they need to die for crimes they probably committed or may commit in the future.
Fixed for accuracy.

If you're interested in a real solution to the problem instead of hand-waving over Obama while leaving the powers intact for the next President, then we need to get Congress to rescind the force use authorizations.

Yes, but if you believe that's going to happen... well I wish I had your optimism.

The AUMF is ridiculously broad, and what congresscritter wants to vote to rescind it? If there's a foreign terrorist attack again, anyone who voted for rescinding it can be accused at being partly to blame for it. In the meantime, any flak while it's in power lands on the president while the congresscritter gets to wring their hands about their colleagues not having enough votes to rescind.

I'm prepared for it to be there for the foreseeable future.

That's my point. No one is actually interested in removing this power from the Executive Branch, which means that all this hand-waving about "Obama is using DROOONES (that we authorized him to use)" is an attempt to get him to stop while simultaneously preserving the power for future Presidents. Surely someone concerned about the possibility of abuse would want to remove the power entirely, no?


Oh, I'm agreeing with you and expanding on the subject. If they really wanted him to stop, there would be as many votes on rescinding AUMF as there have been on Obamacare. They don't because they can't go on record as supporting Obama's actions, and they're too damn cowardly to modify it. It should NEVER have been passed without a sunset clause to begin with.
2013-05-24 10:48:43 AM  
2 votes:

vygramul: neversubmit: qorkfiend: Nabb1: We are killing people from the sky because one branch of the government has unilaterally decidedbeen authorized by another branch of the government to determine that they need to die for crimes they probably committed or may commit in the future.
Fixed for accuracy.

If you're interested in a real solution to the problem instead of hand-waving over Obama while leaving the powers intact for the next President, then we need to get Congress to rescind the force use authorizations.

Yes, but if you believe that's going to happen... well I wish I had your optimism.

The AUMF is ridiculously broad, and what congresscritter wants to vote to rescind it? If there's a foreign terrorist attack again, anyone who voted for rescinding it can be accused at being partly to blame for it. In the meantime, any flak while it's in power lands on the president while the congresscritter gets to wring their hands about their colleagues not having enough votes to rescind.

I'm prepared for it to be there for the foreseeable future.


That's my point. No one is actually interested in removing this power from the Executive Branch, which means that all this hand-waving about "Obama is using DROOONES (that we authorized him to use)" is an attempt to get him to stop while simultaneously preserving the power for future Presidents. Surely someone concerned about the possibility of abuse would want to remove the power entirely, no?
2013-05-24 10:41:25 AM  
2 votes:

neversubmit: qorkfiend: Nabb1: We are killing people from the sky because one branch of the government has unilaterally decidedbeen authorized by another branch of the government to determine that they need to die for crimes they probably committed or may commit in the future.
Fixed for accuracy.

If you're interested in a real solution to the problem instead of hand-waving over Obama while leaving the powers intact for the next President, then we need to get Congress to rescind the force use authorizations.

Yes, but if you believe that's going to happen... well I wish I had your optimism.


The AUMF is ridiculously broad, and what congresscritter wants to vote to rescind it? If there's a foreign terrorist attack again, anyone who voted for rescinding it can be accused at being partly to blame for it. In the meantime, any flak while it's in power lands on the president while the congresscritter gets to wring their hands about their colleagues not having enough votes to rescind.

I'm prepared for it to be there for the foreseeable future.
2013-05-24 10:08:32 AM  
2 votes:
I love how that the conservatives have recently come around to their strong support for universal human rights and p pacifism. Their sudden revulsion at the killing of civilians in the course of the War on Terror is a wonderful development. The pressure they will apply to eliminate the killing of civilians by the US and it's allies like Israel in the effort to stamp out terrorist will be a major help in bringing about a more just and peaceful world. I am certain that this new dedication will last long after this administration is out of office.
2013-05-24 10:07:32 AM  
2 votes:

Nabb1: We are killing people from the sky because one branch of the government has unilaterally decidedbeen authorized by another branch of the government to determine that they need to die for crimes they probably committed or may commit in the future.

Fixed for accuracy.

If you're interested in a real solution to the problem instead of hand-waving over Obama while leaving the powers intact for the next President, then we need to get Congress to rescind the force use authorizations.
2013-05-24 12:21:19 PM  
1 votes:

Tor_Eckman: mrshowrules: sheep snorter: Congress granted the President the power of martial law(patriot act) and the ability to kill anyone anywhere, but congress failed to realize that one day the president would be Black and a Democrat.


/Yo homey. You said I could kill anyone. Anywhere. The paper is right here. So shut the f*ck up, ok.

Here's a dumb question but has the Patriot Act never been challenged through the SCOTUS?

The Patriot act was a conglomeration of new laws and changes to laws that already existed at the time.  Some of them have been struck down, some have been expired, and some have been extended.  I believe there have been SCOTUS cases regarding evidence gathered by provisions of the act and most of them did not rule in favor of it.


Pretty much. The warrantless GPS device was challenged (though I don't know if a related provision was struck, or the conviction was simply overturned), but the ACLU and others have succeeded in getting provisions about national security letters, "sneak and peek" searches, and vaguely-worded "material support of terrorism" laws struck down.
2013-05-24 11:57:11 AM  
1 votes:

Nabb1: Imminent danger is a factor, as you pointed out. And yes, out government kills people once there has been a trial, conviction and appeals process which are supposed to afford them both substantive and procedural due process. We are killing people from the sky because one branch of the government has unilaterally decided they need to die for crimes they probably committed or may commit in the future.


Aren't you supposed to be a lawyer? Or am I thinking of somebody else?
2013-05-24 11:39:22 AM  
1 votes:

vygramul: mrshowrules: The only thing that gives me pause is that this is something that would have been done under Dubya.

WOULD have been done?


Very interesting.  Like I said, there was a work around.  Obama must have been presented this work-around as an option.  Why (unlike Dubya) did he choose the more more honest (although problematic) approach.
2013-05-24 11:29:15 AM  
1 votes:

DarnoKonrad: vygramul: War Powers Act is in effect, the president isn't completely free to act.

Never been tested, and likely unconstitutional.  Authorizations of force are largely window dressing to show the world congress and the president are on the same page, but it's not what really gives power of command to the president.


If the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, it's because it delegates too much Congressional authority to the Executive. We're not really talking about the power of command here - no one disputes that the President is Commander-in-Chief - we're talking about what the President has to command and the scope under which he can issue legal commands, both of which are powers Constitutionally delegated to Congress.
2013-05-24 11:23:51 AM  
1 votes:

vygramul: War Powers Act is in effect, the president isn't completely free to act.


Never been tested, and likely unconstitutional.  Authorizations of force are largely window dressing to show the world congress and the president are on the same page, but it's not what really gives power of command to the president.
2013-05-24 11:17:46 AM  
1 votes:

DarnoKonrad: qorkfiend: remove the power entirely, no?

What power would that be?  *Any* armed force congress raises and equips has only one commander in chief, whether we're in a state of official war or not.  The mere act of buying a bunch of drones of nuclear bombs means only one guy has the power to use them.  It's kind of insane, but that's the constitutional power delegated to the president.


Specifically, the 9/11 AUMF, which people have been saying for years is far too broad and would lead to precisely this situation. More in general, as you point out, Congress is the one who raises and equips the army. If they don't want the President to have an army or drones armed with nukes, they don't have to give him one.
2013-05-24 11:05:21 AM  
1 votes:

mrshowrules: vygramul: mrshowrules: Sock Ruh Tease: What is the difference between an American citizen and terrorist killed in a drone attack (al-Awlaki) vs. an American citizen and terrorist being shot to death by police officers (Tamerlan Tsarnaev)?

Arguably, both are defensive actions. The second is a more immediate concern (terrorists shooting back at cops) while the first is more preemptive. But besides that, what difference is there really? Governments kill their own people all of the time. Feigning shock and outrage because it's done with a certain tool in a certain way is a biatchildish. There are good reasons to oppose the government's killing of citizens but "but drones!" isn't it.

There would have been such a simple work around to this.  Simply target the infrastructure, vehicles and foreign enemies working with Anwar al-Awlaki with prejudice.  Bingo.  Anwar Al-Awlaki is now collateral damage.  Same result, no hassle.

That is less tolerable than simply killing him, because now the government is doing it intentionally without telling us.

Why couldn't they tell people.  Government official "We have targeted and successfully killed terrorists working directly with  Anwar al-Awlaki."

Press: "Was Anwar al-Awiake also killed".

Governemnt:  "Probably"


Do you really want government aiming for an American citizen and refusing to tell you they're doing that? I'd rather they not do that.
2013-05-24 10:15:17 AM  
1 votes:

neversubmit: qorkfiend: Nabb1: We are killing people from the sky because one branch of the government has unilaterally decidedbeen authorized by another branch of the government to determine that they need to die for crimes they probably committed or may commit in the future.
Fixed for accuracy.

If you're interested in a real solution to the problem instead of hand-waving over Obama while leaving the powers intact for the next President, then we need to get Congress to rescind the force use authorizations.

Yes, but if you believe that's going to happen... well I wish I had your optimism.


I don't think it will happen, I'm simply pointing out that anyone who wants truly solve this problem (and many others) should be looking at Congress.
2013-05-24 08:29:58 AM  
1 votes:
My one question: Why did you drone Al-Awlaki's son?

I listened to NPR the other day and it was saying that the son hadn't seen his father in 3 years and after hearing about him on the news, he wanted to go see him.  Before he could, however, his father was killed in a drone attack.  Then, the Arab Spring broke out and he got stuck in Yemen, where he was later killed by a drone attack sitting at a cafe.

He had no history of terrorism or a connection to terrorists aside from his father, and he was 16 years old, so if he hadn't seen his father in 3 years then there wouldn't be any reason to believe he was a threat.

On a side note, it's good to hear Obama's at least making an effort to be more transparent regarding drone attacks.  We'll see what happens, though.
2013-05-24 08:25:27 AM  
1 votes:

tfresh: I'm more curious about the timing of all this. Politicians don't do anything without a reason. Why tell Holder to admit that we've killed Americans with drones?

Is this to make the conversation in the public about drones more accepted so that in the next couple of years when people see them flying down the I-95 corridor it seems 'okay'?


He's keeping Republicans from being able to say "why did you keep silent about AMERICANS being KILLED WITH DRONES?!? This clearly confirms ALL OUR CONSPIRACIES AT ONCE!!!"
2013-05-24 08:19:04 AM  
1 votes:
I'm more curious about the timing of all this. Politicians don't do anything without a reason. Why tell Holder to admit that we've killed Americans with drones?

Is this to make the conversation in the public about drones more accepted so that in the next couple of years when people see them flying down the I-95 corridor it seems 'okay'?
 
Displayed 18 of 18 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report