Liberal critics of drone-warfare standards are simply wrong
In a secret 16-page “white paper” leaked to NBC, Justice Department lawyers have laid out an argument attempting to justify the president’s decision to launch drone attacks even against overseas terrorist leaders who are U.S. citizens.
According to authors of that memo, that presidential authority is derived from “his constitutional responsibility to protect the country, the inherent right of the United States to national self-defense under international law, Congress’s authorization of the use of all necessary and appropriate military force against this enemy, and the existence of an armed conflict with al-Qaida under international law.”
The document also explains the standards implemented by the current administration in using that authority. It concludes that such strikes are legal when:
– The targeted individual is “a senior operational leader of al Qaida or an associated force of al Qaida — that is, an al Qaida leader actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans.”
– “… an informed, high-level official of the US government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the U.S.”
– The capture of the individual located in a foreign country is deemed “infeasible.”
It’s important to point out that this is not a theoretical exercise. President Obama has used this life-and-death authority to order a successful drone strike against Anwar al-Alwaki, a U.S. citizen who became a top regional leader for Al Qaida in Yemen, where arresting him was impossible.
Among other plots, Al-Awlaki helped plan the attempted airliner bombing on Christmas Day in 2009, as well as two attempted cargo-plane bombings using plastic explosives. As a recruiter for al Qaida, he also encouraged the attack by Major Nidal Hasan that killed 13 U.S. soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas.
In the video below, Al-Awlaki makes his loyalties and his intentions quite clear:
“We have chosen the path of war in order to defend ourselves against your oppression,” he says, in one of many damning statements. “God willing, we will continue in this war and you will find us persistent.”
In his particular case, God was not willing. Al-Alwaki died in a drone attack in Yemen on Sept. 30, 2011.
Personally, I have no problem whatsoever with launching such an attack. His citizenship does not outweigh the threat that he clearly posed to the security of this country. Others, however, have expressed deep concern about what they see as a violation of al-Alwaki’s right to legal due process, and about an unconstitutional, even radical expansion of executive powers.
You will sometimes run across a half-hearted version of that critique coming from conservatives, but it is hard to take such complaints seriously. If you doubt that conclusion, imagine what conservative critics would be saying if the Obama administration had announced that it would NOT target known al Qaida leaders out of deference to due process concerns.
The howling would be epic.
On the other hand, those liberals who take issue with the policy tend to be sincere and serious about it, to the point of near-hysteria.
In Salon, for example, columnist David Sirota claims that in the leaked white paper, the White House has asserted the radical power to kill citizens “without any concrete intelligence suggesting a citizen is linked to terrorist activity” (emphasis original). It is a claim that he repeats throughout the column, asserting that “evidence is not required to kill someone,” that “the president doesn’t actually need evidence to order someone’s death” and that “not a single shred of actual evidence is needed not just to prosecute (the target), but to outright execute him.”
Here’s the section of the memo on which Sirota bases that charge:
“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future. Given the nature of, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, in which civilian airliners were hijacked to strike the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, this definition of imminence, which would require the United States to refrain from action until preparations for an attack are concluded, would not allow the United States sufficient time to defend itself.”
The memo states that the president doesn’t need evidence of a particular, specific plot being hatched in the immediate future in order to take action against an al Qaida leader. That’s a far cry from “not a single shred of actual evidence is needed.”
And again, the case of al-Alwaki offers a useful example. Given what we already knew about his actions, and given his own public testimony, we did not need evidence of a specific new plot in the immediate future to justify taking action against him. We knew more than enough already.
Glenn Greenwald, writing in The Guardian, takes a tack similar to Sirota, accusing the administration of obviating a citizen’s constitutional right to due process before his life can be taken by his government.
Like Sirota, he writes:
“Specifically, the president’s assassination power ‘does not require that the US have clear evidence that a specific attack . . . will take place in the immediate future’. The US routinely assassinates its targets not when they are engaged in or plotting attacks but when they are at home, with family members, riding in a car, at work, at funerals, rescuing other drone victims, etc. ”
I’m not sure what that last sentence is intended to communicate. Are bank robbers only to be arrested in the actual act of robbing the bank?
That aside, here’s the most basic problem with the criticisms raised by Sirota, Greenwald and others: What is the cure?
If you do not want “an informed, high-level official of the US government,” i.e., the president and commander in chief, to determine whether a “targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the U.S.,” to whom would you give that authority?
By casting it as a question of due process, you necessarily invest that full power in the judiciary. You would require a judge or panel of judges to decide from the bench whether it is operationally plausible to capture rather than kill this particular terrorist in this particular country. A judge or judges would have to balance a citizen’s right to due process against the threat of an attack imminent enough to justify military intervention.
No judge is capable of such a decision. On what legal basis could such judgments be based? The answer is none. No reasonable judge would want the power or responsibility to make such national security judgments.
This is not wiretapping, a field in which judges have years of legal training, decades of experience and centuries of constitutional precedent to fall back upon. This cuts to the core of the commander in chief’s duty, and I do not believe for one second that the Founding Fathers envisioned giving judges the power to make such decisions. Giving judges that kind of power and responsibility would make a joke of the separation of powers and seriously damage the security of this country.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
497 comments Add your comment
saywhat?
February 5th, 2013
5:57 pm
I think I would prefer US citizens accused of acting with terrorists against the U.S., but unable to be apprehended because they are in foreign countries, be tried in absentia. The individual could provide his own defense of one could be supplied if he failed to do so.
If they are found guilty, perhaps the sentence could be execution by drone or any other military attack, at a time and place at the Presidents discretion.
It seems there would be plenty of time to accomplish such trials given the rare occurrence of the US citizen/terrorist scenario. Its not as if we come upon random drone targets and identify them on the spot as US citizens.
josef
February 5th, 2013
5:57 pm
IMAM TORQUEMADA
And what’s your take on the 16 year old boy…?
Moderate Line
February 5th, 2013
5:58 pm
Jay
February 5th, 2013
5:54 pm
It’s interesting how conservatives go from “you’re not allowed to bring up He Who Must Not Be Named” to “oh yeah, well what about BUSH, huh?”
+++++
I believe both are wrong. I find it interesting you can torture someone but you can release him and kill him with drone.
Jay
February 5th, 2013
5:58 pm
“Under the wording of the memo, if the President doesn’t like Jay Bookman, and on his prodding some low level flunky gives him a memo (informed!) that Mr. Bookman is associated with terrorist forces, and it’s just not feasible to capture him (because he’s on vacation in Tahiti), then Jay could be placed on the kill list.
This is where the word “overwrought” comes in.
Brosephus™
February 5th, 2013
6:00 pm
josef
Re Al-Awlaki’s son…
If he were just an innocent victim, why was he in hiding for more than half a year in the same mountains used as a hideaway by the Yemen AQ offshoot group? Why was he riding in a convoy with Ibrahim al-Bana, who was the main media person for AQ in Yemen?
I’m not trying to blame the son, nor am I condoning killing him. However, at some point and time, a person has to be responsible for their actions. You can’t go hang out with the Outlaws, the Bloods, or any other group targeted by law enforcement as a criminal group and not know what they do, how they operate, or what they stand for after some point and time.
Union
February 5th, 2013
6:01 pm
This is where the word “overwrought” comes in
its not like this is happening all the time.. i think there is a tad bit more thinking that goes into the process..
getalife
February 5th, 2013
6:01 pm
Libs have been consistently against it when w gained this power but that is a pretty good argument Jay.
Thomas
February 5th, 2013
6:01 pm
You are defending the wrong point here Jay. It seems fine when we, aka the good guys, use drones for overseas killings because we, the good guys, are always “right”, aren’t we?. Drones are becoming common place and I assume Russia, China, Pakistan, etc. will, or do have the technology and they, good guys in their eyes, have or will determine certain Americans on American soil are legitimate targets. They, like us, will also consider 14 year old Suzy who is next in line at the DQ simply collateral damage.
The point is joy stick warfare removes the human element and literally 100s of different countries/leaders/cowboys will be self determining who is fair game- not moral and no way to defend it.
barking frog
February 5th, 2013
6:02 pm
“Under the wording of the memo, if the President doesn’t like Jay Bookman, and on his prodding some low level flunky gives him a memo (informed!) that Mr. Bookman is associated with terrorist forces, and it’s just not feasible to capture him (because he’s on vacation in Tahiti), then Jay could be placed on the kill list.
…………………………………………………………
there is always some collateral damage in wartime……..
Keep Up the Good Fight!
February 5th, 2013
6:02 pm
And if a President decided to put Jay on the kill list knowingly based on false information (probably provided by one of the self-imposed suicide posters) then the President could be impeached and prosecuted for murder or war crimes.
Dave
February 5th, 2013
6:03 pm
The “heat of battle” and the commander in chief arguments don’t hold up to examination. If “this is war” and the President gets to make the decision to launch a drone then there is no such thing as a war criminal. Drones are launched after consideration of evidence done far from the battlefield. We aren’t giving a soldier in a foxhole a break for shooting the wrong guy or inflicting collateral damage because he aimed the mortar a bit incorrectly. The president is the analytical equivalent to any other head of state – the Hitlers, Stalins, Pol Pots and so on. Were we wrong to conduct the Nuremberg Trials? The answer is yes if Obama or any other President gets a pass and due process doesn’t apply.
Uh Huh... The penalty for Patriotic Treason is death
February 5th, 2013
6:04 pm
@josef
February 5th, 2013
5:25 pm
Uh-oh
“Cons won’t be so quick to defend a 16 year old who was probably being groomed to kill americans and who is willing to die for his cause.”‘
I’m not a con. And your ‘probably’ is the key factor…this is the “nits make lice” arguments of Sherman and Eichmann…
You’re “probably” a dip-sh*t. I’ve declared war on dip-sh*ts. Therefore I can drone you.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Your NAIVETE’….lack of sophistication or worldliness is well taken.
Your lack of an intelligent response is also well taken.
Dave
February 5th, 2013
6:04 pm
One last thing, what is liberal or conservative about this issue?
barking frog
February 5th, 2013
6:04 pm
josef
16 year olds can kill and be killed……
josef
February 5th, 2013
6:05 pm
BROSEPHUS
Question: could it not be that as his grandfather said, that he went to find his daddy? He was a BOY,,,did you (and I) not go to find our daddies to see what it was that all those people were saying about them? His daddy was on the world stage and, yes, was a terrorist, but can you not accept that this may well have been mine and your quest in essence?
Moderate Line
February 5th, 2013
6:05 pm
Jay
February 5th, 2013
5:58 pm
“Under the wording of the memo, if the President doesn’t like Jay Bookman, and on his prodding some low level flunky gives him a memo (informed!) that Mr. Bookman is associated with terrorist forces, and it’s just not feasible to capture him (because he’s on vacation in Tahiti), then Jay could be placed on the kill list.
This is where the word “overwrought” comes in.
+++
Whether it is overwrought or not you have given him that power. And that power has been abused many times in the past. He is answerable to one.
Lynnie Gal
February 5th, 2013
6:05 pm
I agree with you, Jay. The outcry and insinuations about the president’s assertion that it is legal to “kill Americans” is very misguided and irresponsible. These two “Americans” were terrorists living abroad whose intent was to harm other Americans. I support Obama’s decision to pursue and destroy terrorists whether they were born in America or not. The point is, once they leave America and plot to destroy people in America, they lose their protection as Americans.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 5th, 2013
6:07 pm
What if there was something like the FISA court (which applies to wiretapping), but which could apply to the targeting of American citizens who are known to be dealing directly with known terrorists and known terror organizations?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act_of_1978_Amendments_Act_of_2008#Provisions
The President (or DoD or DHS or whichever delegated authority) could go to the court, provide the judge their documentation and answer questions. I presume the government would be required to turn over *all* information they had that pertained to the target, not just information that made the target look bad.
The court gets to consider the evidence and render a ruling. Only if the court concurs can the US citizen then be targeted without trial.
This is just a quick idea; surely others could add some meat on these bones and make it a more comprehensive policy.
josef
February 5th, 2013
6:08 pm
Uh-Huh
“Your lack of an intelligent response is also well taken.”
Likewise, I’m sure.
FROG
So, then, may I assume you’re in favor of the death penalty for minors?
Joe Hussein Mama
February 5th, 2013
6:08 pm
BTW, I’m out. Y’all chew on that idea and see what you can make of it, please.
barking frog
February 5th, 2013
6:10 pm
When the President identifies an enemy combatant in the Congress,
He can shoot him on the Capitol steps as far as I’m concerned and
probably should.
Brosephus™
February 5th, 2013
6:11 pm
josef
That is entirely plausible, which is why I don’t condone targeting him. Have you considered that maybe nobody within the intelligence community knew he was that close to the known terrorists? How many times have you snuck into a place where nobody knew that you were there?
I’ve thrown many different scenarios around in my head, but none of that thinking can undo what’s already been done. My hope is that we’ve learned from that incident and history doesn’t repeat itself again.
barking frog
February 5th, 2013
6:12 pm
josef
So, then, may I assume you’re in favor of the death penalty for minors?
……………………………………………………………………………….
if they are enemy combatants…
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
February 5th, 2013
6:14 pm
So the rest of the world would have a say in who the US determines is affiliated with terrorists before they are killed?
No, but the rest of the world belongs to what you labeled the “intel community”, sport.
Please don’t try to move the goalposts. You just don’t have what it takes to lift them.
F. Sinkwich
February 5th, 2013
6:15 pm
So what some rag-head terrorist get a missile up his worthless butt?
Meanwhile, back at the ranch:
“The Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday quietly raised the 10-year cost of ObamaCare´s insurance subsidies offered via the health law´s exchanges by $233 billion, according to a Congressional Budget Office review of its latest spending forecast. The CBO´s new baseline estimate shows that ObamaCare subsidies offered through the insurance exchanges — which are supposed to be up and running by next January — will total more than $1 trillion through 2022, up from $814 billion over those same years in its budget forecast made a year ago. ”
Wow. Never saw that coming (kinda like them terrorists and a Predator).
Our welfare state under “Skeets” O’Bozo is unaffordable and unsustainable yet this issue is ignored by the swooning MSM and associated other America-haters.
Once again:
RIP USA 1776-2012
josef
February 5th, 2013
6:16 pm
FROG
And how was it determined that Junior was an “enemy combatant?”
BROSEPHUS
I realize that I’m close to joining the boa chorus here, but the boy was targeted…
Emotionally, I can go with the drone that mo-fo as far as Papa is concerned, but the boy? This is what I mean by slippery slope…my emotions there are just as strong…
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
February 5th, 2013
6:17 pm
By the way, does anyone remember Obama’s position on drones “before” he was president?
Just asking.
kayaker 71
February 5th, 2013
6:18 pm
Bookman,
Coming from one of the most abashed Bush critics, your thread is abysmal. What a hypocrite!!! It wasn’t OK for Bush to monitor overseas telephone calls from suspected terrorists. You and the ACLU went orbital. We waterboarded three terrorists and ultimately got OBL from the intel and we were beasts and not even human. Now your president is considering killing American citizens without due process and it’s OK, just because he is Bozo and a Democrat. You have lost all credibility. BTW, Bozo also got a 16 yr old son of that American citizen. The logic of liberals is pathetic.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
February 5th, 2013
6:19 pm
CBO: Obamacare will cost 7 million workers healthcare coverage…
drudgey spam.
barking frog
February 5th, 2013
6:19 pm
josef
And how was it determined that Junior was an “enemy combatant?”
………………………………………………………………………………
he was within the definition of enemy combatants.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
February 5th, 2013
6:20 pm
indigo:
“Scout – 5:49
How about apples and oranges?”
They are apples and oranges …………….. but both just as important.
Peace
February 5th, 2013
6:20 pm
And what does Obama say when a drone blasts an innocent target to smithereens? Uh oh? Maybe he proclaims executive privilege. Pretty sure Jay Carney will emerge and tell us that the victim was a genuine terrorist, plotting a strike against U.S interests, but specific information cannot be released due to national security concerns.
In the very least, the Obama administration should be able to eliminate a few domestic political adversaries when they’re traveling in other parts of the world.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
February 5th, 2013
6:21 pm
kayaker 71:
“Coming from one of the most abashed Bush critics, your thread is abysmal. What a hypocrite!!! It wasn’t OK for Bush to monitor overseas telephone calls from suspected terrorists. You and the ACLU went orbital. We waterboarded three terrorists and ultimately got OBL from the intel and we were beasts and not even human. Now your president is considering killing American citizens without due process and it’s OK, just because he is Bozo and a Democrat. You have lost all credibility. BTW, Bozo also got a 16 yr old son of that American citizen. The logic of liberals is pathetic.”
Thanks buddy ……………… YOU NAILED IT !!!!
josef
February 5th, 2013
6:22 pm
KAYAKER
“The logic of liberals is pathetic”
This isn’t liberal logic…it’s two-stepping and bordering on caudilloismo…
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
February 5th, 2013
6:22 pm
kayaker 71:
Let me clarify …………… I suppost Obama’s position on using drones as outline above.
However, I also condemn the hypocrisy of libs. on here in their support of same as opposed to what they supported or didn’t support under Bush.
Brosephus™
February 5th, 2013
6:22 pm
josef
Here’s something that’s rarely mentioned by the US media…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/11/us-pakistan-bombers-youth-feature-idUSTRE71A35I20110211
On the previous thread, I posted a CNN story about madrassas over in the ME that were teaching kids to hate America. I’m not going to make any claims or judgments on the son, but there is already factual proof that kids are being involved in terrorist activities. Does that mean we should target kids? NO!! However, we can’t be naive of a potential threat just because of age.
I also understand the slippery slope argument, and I think we would have already seen an escalation of things if that were the case. I think the media scrutiny along with public debate is keeping things under control.
barking frog
February 5th, 2013
6:23 pm
Peace
And what does Obama say when a drone blasts an innocent target to smithereens? Uh oh?
…………………………………………………….
Pretty much.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
February 5th, 2013
6:23 pm
Excuse me:
“support”
josef
February 5th, 2013
6:23 pm
FROG
He was not.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
February 5th, 2013
6:24 pm
And Sinky attempts the deflect with an unsupported claim about CBO estimates that were made in MARCH 2012, 11 months ago.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage%20Estimates.pdf
barking frog
February 5th, 2013
6:25 pm
Kayaker 71
Now your president is considering killing American citizens without due process and it’s OK, just because he is Bozo and a Democrat
………………………………………………………………………..
No. Because the Congress of the USA AUTHORIZED him to do so.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
February 5th, 2013
6:27 pm
We waterboarded three terrorists and ultimately got OBL from the intel and we were beasts and not even human
Nope. The intel was not a result of waterboarding (note that you don’t even bother to support that claim) but I acknowledge that given your racism and other posts, I am willing to accept your evaluation of your beast not human standard (again, YOUR evaluation).
josef
February 5th, 2013
6:28 pm
BROSEPHUS
I have no argument with that about youth and brainwashing, etc. But, let’s drop the two stepping. In this case it boils down to nits make lice. Otherwise why would a 16 year old merit a drone, that is if we are to accept that “we would have already seen an escalation of things if that were the case” If it is THAT thought out and selective, then the condemnation, imeoiauo, becomes all the more questionable…
barking frog
February 5th, 2013
6:28 pm
josef
in order to be targeted as an enemy combatant a person
has to meet the definition of an enemy combatant otherwise
if killed they are collateral damage..
Hiram
February 5th, 2013
6:29 pm
Jay, Do you ever get the urge to stop by a preschool playground and argue with the little kids?
josef
February 5th, 2013
6:31 pm
FROG
A target is collateral damage?
Moderate Line
February 5th, 2013
6:35 pm
hypothetical – Another question since it is an act of war if Al-Quaeda surrender would we have to release the ones we control and would be able to carry on attacks against them until we were attack again?
Moderate Line
February 5th, 2013
6:37 pm
Imminent threat does not really mean imminent threat.
“With this understanding, the document added, a high-level official could conclude, for example, that an individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States where he is an operational leader of al-Qaida or an associated force and is personally and continually involved in planning terrorist attacks against the United States.”
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/02/05/drone-strikes-justice-department-memo-brennan/1893581/
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
February 5th, 2013
6:38 pm
Imminent threat does not really mean imminent threat.
The smoking gun is the mushroom cloud.
F. Sinkwich
February 5th, 2013
6:39 pm
“And Sinky attempts the deflect with an unsupported claim about CBO estimates that were made in MARCH 2012, 11 months ago.”
Oh, and here Sinky thought heard O’Bozo say Obamacare would SAVE money yet every subsequent estimate, regaredless of timing, says O’Bozo is a lying piece of sh*t.
Sinky knows O’Bozo’s deeply held desire is to turn America into a euro-socialist basketcase. Why? Because it’s “fair.”
Sinky is wiser than you.
Jay
February 5th, 2013
6:42 pm
“Jay, Do you ever get the urge to stop by a preschool playground and argue with the little kids?
Why Hiram, wherever did you get such a strange notion? ;>)
barking frog
February 5th, 2013
6:43 pm
josef
collateral damage is not a target.
saywhat?
February 5th, 2013
6:45 pm
Hiram-“Jay, Do you ever get the urge to stop by a preschool playground and argue with the little kids?”
Jay-”Why Hiram, wherever did you get such a strange notion? ;>)”
—————————————————————
I never see Jay over at Kyle’s place.
josef
February 5th, 2013
6:47 pm
FROG
Well, was Junior a target or collateral damage?
JamVet
February 5th, 2013
6:47 pm
I find it quite remarkable that in no time flat the GOP has lost the battle for national security. I believe this is a direct consequence of the failed and deadly Bush administration and a damning indictment of the entire neoconservative ideology and preemptive, chosen wars.
Traditionally, Republican candidates had always enjoyed a so-called “national-security advantage” (at least in those elections where foreign and defense policies were major issues). Only a short eight years ago, George W. Bush enjoyed a eighteen-point lead over John Kerry when exit polls asked voters to rate who they trusted to wage the “war on terror” more effectively, and of those voters who made national security a voting issue, sixty percent favored the Republican incumbent. No longer.
The November 2012 Rasmussen report now gives Democrats the edge when the question is posed as to which party is better equipped to deal with national security. Veterans and active duty military are more likely to split their votes rather than acting as a reliably Republican voting bloc, as occurred in other recent past elections. Exit polling after the 2012 campaign concluded suggested that President Barack Obama and his challenger, Governor Mitt Romney, polled “equally on national security” and that voters “trusted the president 11 points more on the broader category of international affairs.” Peter Beinart concluded that, in winning reelection, Obama has “broken the GOP’s decades-old advantage on foreign affairs.”
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/how-the-gop-lost-national-security-7842
Failure, in the form of deceit and botched invasions and occupations, has consequences.
jconservative
February 5th, 2013
6:48 pm
Right or wrong, for 224 years every US president has taken the position that when we are at war, the rules get bent to insure the survival of the American state. Every president takes an oath to “protect and defend”. Every president from G. Washington through B. Obama have taken the position that the survival of the United States is first and individual rights are second. There have been no exceptions. And I do not anticipate any exceptions in the distant foreseeable future.
getalife
February 5th, 2013
6:53 pm
Drones are better than losing troops .
barking frog
February 5th, 2013
6:53 pm
josef
as far as I know he was a target…
Get Real
February 5th, 2013
6:53 pm
Liberal Hypocrisy….waterboard is torture and we have to close Gitmo….however, let’s just target andfvaporize instead. Don’t get me wrong, I fully support the policy but I have to laugh at the liberal hypocrisy…
josef
February 5th, 2013
6:54 pm
jconservative
There is much truth in what you say. My problem here is that this administration won’t just man up and say that that’s what they’re doing. Instead they’re trying to have it both ways. If the rule of law is in the way, then go ahead and say that the national security is overriding the rule of law. But cut the horse sh*t and trying to make a t*rd smell like a rose…
josef
February 5th, 2013
6:55 pm
FROG
So, he was a target. And where is the evidence that made him one? Why is the administration sticking with the line he was in the wrong place at the wrong time?
Brosephus™
February 5th, 2013
6:56 pm
Liberal Hypocrisy….waterboard is torture and we have to close Gitmo….however, let’s just target andfvaporize instead.
http://redux.com/stream/item/767312/Epic-Facepalm-Mosaic
josef
February 5th, 2013
6:56 pm
GET REAL
Drop the partisanship for a minute, it’s the liberals who are bringing the question up…
Paul
February 5th, 2013
6:57 pm
150 comments and I’d hoped to read about a discussion of this ‘due process’ Obama critics keep going on about. Keep Up and Joe Hussein Mama hit a few point, but mostly to enlighten the ones who keep talking about it but don’t seem to know what it means in this context.
Not unexpected, I suppose.
Also haven’t seen any takers on transferring Executive Branch authority to the Judicial Branch.
Oh well, I’ll keep reading.
TBS
February 5th, 2013
7:00 pm
“But cut the horse sh*t and trying to make a t*rd smell like a rose…”
You know we do not have many forthright politicians in DC when it comes to issues of this magnitude.
Brosephus™
February 5th, 2013
7:01 pm
Paul
I’d say don’t waste your time, but I’m sure you already know that.
josef
February 5th, 2013
7:03 pm
TBS
Which is why I long for at least one thing from the ’50s…Harry Truman…
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
February 5th, 2013
7:04 pm
The civilians in Dresden, Berlin, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were “collateral damage”.
F. Sinkwich
February 5th, 2013
7:04 pm
“…voters “trusted the president 11 points more on the broader category of international affairs.””
We are doomed.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
February 5th, 2013
7:05 pm
Well, one thing is for sure ………… the attack on Benghazi was NOT a terrorist attack so I SURE hope the president doesn’t use drones to go after any of those folks.
Right Jay ?
weetamoe
February 5th, 2013
7:07 pm
Conservative concerns are not serious: liberal concerns are serious.
Jay
February 5th, 2013
7:09 pm
“We are doomed.”
What do you mean by “we,” kemosabe?
keith
February 5th, 2013
7:09 pm
Just had to do something I really didnt want to do. I have been contributing to ST Judes for years. Unfortunately I had to send them a letter that my taxes was increased, my healthcare costs have increased and can no longer send them much needed funding. I hope that because mr bookmans guy has made these changes necessary that he will begin contributing to ST Judes. Likewise for other obama liberals. You should pledge to support the many charities but I doubt many of you can afford it either in the current tax and spend climate. So sorry ST Judes but as I stated in the letter, you can thank Dear President.
Dave
February 5th, 2013
7:09 pm
Paul, read Democracy and Distrust by John Ely. Might give you a better understanding of the importance of due process and why it isn’t a good idea to let people make life and death decisions about others without it unless it is absolutely necessary.
Jack ®
February 5th, 2013
7:11 pm
Bookman’s a little testy. He spent a lot of this piece and you all are not supposed to disagree with him.
Peace
February 5th, 2013
7:11 pm
Eric Hoder: “Our primary concern is to keep the American people safe.”
Unless you happen tp be a U.S. border agent. Or if you’re a U.S. Ambassador in Lybia. Stay alert if Obama and Holder have your back.
Jack ®
February 5th, 2013
7:12 pm
time
Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (aka "Knuckle-Dragger")
February 5th, 2013
7:12 pm
Another brain-dead line of reasoning, but that’s what makes you so entertaining, Jay. I have to give you credit, you always stick with the party line, comrade.
Drones seem to be the toy the imperial viceroy never got as a child, and if you are a power-mad clown to boot, its got to be heaven on earth.
Let me explain the difference between warrantless wiretaps and drones to you, Jay. You can not kill somebody with a warrantless wiretap. Y’all were just all over Bush, but this is OK. You democrats would certainly win the world mental gymnastics championships, if they were to be held (perhaps they do that at Davos).
Corey
February 5th, 2013
7:12 pm
@Dave
February 5th, 2013
5:31 pm
You are aware that any modern day POTUS has a plethora of experts at his disposal on any given subject, issue?
keith
February 5th, 2013
7:13 pm
We are doomed.”
What do you mean by “we,” kemosabe?
When the country collapses and the citizens are no longer getting their handout they will start rioting and looting just as in Greece. But mr bookman and his ilk despise the tools necessary to protect life and property in such a calamity. So good poit jay. YOU are doomed.
josef
February 5th, 2013
7:13 pm
keith
St Jude’s welcomes all contributions no matter how big or how small…you’re just a cheapsh*t looking for an excuse and trying to make a point. No boa for you!
Brosephus™
February 5th, 2013
7:14 pm
Eric Hoder: “Our primary concern is to keep the American people safe.”
Unless you happen tp be a U.S. border agent.
There’s always going to be a post that causes invocation of the Kamchak Corollary…
“If you’re gonna make sh*t up, then there’s no need to be half assed about it.”
–Kamchak Jefferson
Brosephus™
February 5th, 2013
7:15 pm
josef @ 7:13
Paul
February 5th, 2013
7:15 pm
Dave
Thanks, I’ll look it up.
But my point was hoping to hear from those who decry a lack of due process give a bit of the background of due process that formed the basis for their assertions.
If that last sentence struck you as funny, it was intended to.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
February 5th, 2013
7:15 pm
SoCo/Bro
indigo
February 5th, 2013
7:17 pm
keith – 7:09
Greed filled Business, eager to find any excuse to stop sharing healthcare costs with their employees, are responsible for these increased costs.
Tell St. Judes to complaing to Big Business.
keith
February 5th, 2013
7:18 pm
I remember when Bush first armed the drones. The left was howling. Bush wanted to be judge, jury and executioner. The evil oil baron from Texas was going to murder people without a trial, without a verdict of guilt. They were howling like mad dogs. And those werent even American citizens. Now their guy wants to kill Americans without a trial, without a verdict of guilt, and what does bookman do? Slobbers all over zero acting like obamas little errand boy spreading the gospel according to obama.
Jay
February 5th, 2013
7:18 pm
You just can’t wait for that day to get here, can you Keith?
I see you quiver with antici……………………………………………………………………pation.
keith
February 5th, 2013
7:20 pm
keith – 7:09
Greed filled Business, eager to find any excuse to stop sharing healthcare costs with their employees, are responsible for these increased costs.
Tell St. Judes to complaing to Big Business.
Dear leader made those changes necessary. Keep telling yourself that garbage, but before Obama I happily contributed to them. Big business was the same then as it is now. This change is what you voted for. St Judes and other charities will just have to pay for your hope and change crap.
indigo
February 5th, 2013
7:20 pm
keith
There are enough guns in America to support a large army.
You know perfectly well that Big Business has such a hold on our politicians that guns will never even begin to go away.
If we’re “doomed” it’s because, for way too long now, we’ve had the best Congress money can buy.
TBS
February 5th, 2013
7:21 pm
josef @ 7:13
My bet is the post you responded to was nothing but a bs lie.
Corey
February 5th, 2013
7:21 pm
@Hiram
February 5th, 2013
6:29 pm
@Jay
February 5th, 2013
6:42 pm
Play fair, you two. No hiting belown the belt.
DeborahinAthens
February 5th, 2013
7:22 pm
The poop is going to hit the fan when those homegrown terrorists like the survivalists get whacked! The government used its death power against the terrorists in Waco and Ruby Ridge. Frankly, I don’t see a problem. If Dubya the Dumb had done this instead of starting two senseless wars, we’ d all be a lot better off–especially the 5000 soldiers that have died and the thousands that have lost limbs.
F. Sinkwich
February 5th, 2013
7:22 pm
“What do you mean by “we,” kemosabe?”
America, Tonto.
O’Bozo’s foreign policy is just like his throw from the mound — limp-wristed.
We need to be respected…and feared…in order to be an effective world power. O’Bozo wants us to be loved. So we cave, grovel, bow, and kiss ass.
He wants to kill the military, and as a result, our freedom.
keith
February 5th, 2013
7:22 pm
You just can’t wait for that day to get here, can you Keith?
I see you quiver with antici……………………………………………………………………pation.
I hope it dont get here but my AK-47 will protect a whole lot better than your silly words of encouragement to the brain dead sheeple that buy into your crap.
Dave
February 5th, 2013
7:22 pm
Corey, that I do and I’m sure that presidents use them. I’ve got no problem with their decisions in situations that are time sensitive; but, when it isn’t necessary to do something now, this minute on the battle field, without all the legal wrangling, it seems to me to be a good idea to have a couple of sets of experts present the pros and cons and an uninvolved person, a judge, say yes or no.
barking frog
February 5th, 2013
7:22 pm
josef
he may have been designated a target but later defined as collateral
damage due to not meeting the definition of a target.
josef
February 5th, 2013
7:23 pm
TBS
I would agree with that, too…
TaxPayer
February 5th, 2013
7:23 pm
Cons are such drones.
josef
February 5th, 2013
7:23 pm
FROG
Which makes it even worse…