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
keith
February 5th, 2013
10:33 pm
betty you and bill clinton should hang out. just be careful when he offers you a cigar.
Mr Right, the FOXBOT
February 5th, 2013
10:34 pm
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
The howling would be epic by you if this was Bush doing this!
DownInAlbany
February 5th, 2013
10:34 pm
A reporter asked Jay Carney to explain the President’s changing positions on human rights issues in war. The reporter asked, “The President strongly opposed the ‘enhanced interrogation techniques,’ so called, of the Bush administration. He ended them. How does dropping a bomb on an American citizen without any judicial review, any trial, not raise the very human rights questions, or more human rights questions than something like water boarding?”
moonbat betty
February 5th, 2013
10:37 pm
OK, keith,
same goes for when you f’ getalife.
Recon 0311 2533
February 5th, 2013
10:37 pm
One thing y’all have to know about a shot gun is that within 30 yards that would be about the range you’d be shooting against a bad guy intruder that gun will only spread buckshot at about the size of a small water glass. You still have to aim.
flagboy?
February 5th, 2013
10:39 pm
“That reality demonstrates both the moral bankruptcy of the Bush approach and its essential anti-American nature. One of the key insights of our Founding Fathers was that government power should never go unchecked, because great unchecked power leads inevitably to arrogance and great unchecked abuse.
The Bush administration nonetheless claimed and exerted such power, and for a time the American people, judicial system and political leadership allowed that claim to stand. It was not our finest moment as a people.”
–Jay Bookman “Guantanamo an American Failure” November 25, 2008
Yo Yo
February 5th, 2013
10:45 pm
Moonbat
You have a mouth on you for a female.
Nasty nothings
oldguy
February 5th, 2013
10:46 pm
I see “Metta World Peace” (Ron Artest in real life) got thrown out of a pro basketball game Sunday and suspended tonight. Gotta love those peaceniks, they are great fighters!
Peace
February 5th, 2013
10:48 pm
DownInAlbany @ 10:34:
You need to take into consideration that the current president is a liberal Democrat. Things are different now. The outrage will return when a conservative occupies the White House.
moonbat betty
February 5th, 2013
10:49 pm
Yo Yo.
I could shut your face…
and I could skeet higher than you too.
ken
February 5th, 2013
10:53 pm
If President Bush did this you libs would be screaming at him. Go figure.
Yo Yo
February 5th, 2013
10:53 pm
Betty or Bob
Thanks for proving my point.
Thomas
February 5th, 2013
10:55 pm
Flagboy- Well done. Modern media simply judges first and backfills an argument providing the reader no real new information.
moonbat betty
February 5th, 2013
11:00 pm
sorry, Yo Yo.
They censored my post.
Any time you wanna step outside.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7hHx7gdN68
oldguy
February 5th, 2013
11:03 pm
great post Flagboy?
Jay,
So locking up enemy combatants in a tropical paradise with good food, recreation, prayer books and rugs is “moral bankruptcy” and “anti-American” but blowing them and their children up by remote control is OK?
Yeah, sounds fair to be.
getalife
February 5th, 2013
11:03 pm
I spray 90 rounds and let God sort them out.
Yo Yo
February 5th, 2013
11:03 pm
Calm down Bob
Your blog bully act is only impressing you.
Sleep it off.
Jm
February 5th, 2013
11:05 pm
On topic
Just try the dude in absentia beforehand
If found guilty, then vest the powers of execution in the executive
When the executive has become judge jury and executioner, all in one, we have seriously lost our way
Obama is Bush II, and he sucks
getalife
February 5th, 2013
11:09 pm
Yeah and if the target attacks, you would say our President should have droned him so shut it jm.
moonbat betty
February 5th, 2013
11:09 pm
lol,
damn the critics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xat1GVnl8-k
Yo Yo.
You and getalife remind me of “Swede”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9qssDTyVNo
Yo Yo
February 5th, 2013
11:12 pm
Moonbat
You remind me of a scared man who plays a tough woman on a blog
Lol
keith
February 5th, 2013
11:14 pm
anyone remember when the Glock 17 was about to be imported into this country? The gun control nuts were howling about the plastic gun evading airport security. It was going to kill everyone during their flights. Looking back now, werent they really really stupid? What is the number 1 gun utilized by law enf in this country today? Glocks.
Well they havent changed. They are STILL that stupid.
flagboy?
February 5th, 2013
11:17 pm
oldguy, i’m not going to compare Guantanamo to a tropical paradise. . .
moonbat betty
February 5th, 2013
11:21 pm
Yo Yo,
you be silly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wuGSRx2qsc
Oscar
February 5th, 2013
11:24 pm
It’s really weird to read cons complaining about the violation of people’s civil rights. Like the world has been turnedupside down.
flagboy?
February 5th, 2013
11:28 pm
Oscar
It’s really weird to read cons complaining about the violation of people’s civil rights. Like the world has been turnedupside down.
________________________________
I know. the next thing might be libs condoning the loss of people’s civil rights. really weird indeed.
oldguy
February 5th, 2013
11:31 pm
Flag
Its better that being dead!
And I can assure you its a tropical paradise compared to Iraq or Afghanistan.
One of my favorite jokes “Who is this Stan guy they named all these countrys after?”
td
February 5th, 2013
11:35 pm
Oscar
February 5th, 2013
11:24 pm
It’s really weird to read cons complaining about the violation of people’s civil rights. Like the world has been turnedupside down.
Depends on whos rights you are talking about. If it is the foreign terrorist then hell no. If it is American citizens then I am a little more cautious and do not want to just leave it up to the executive branch alone.
For the most part I approve of the drone program but I think it should be modified to include not only the executive branch but include a panel for approving the death of an American citizen that includes members of all three branches of government. unanimous approval before we take out a citizen.
keith
February 5th, 2013
11:35 pm
When Bush was in office liberals wanted terrorists read their miranda rights. now they want them killed. funny how an election can turn liberals all around, backwards and upside down.
keith
February 5th, 2013
11:36 pm
bookmans has proven its not just the SECOND AMENDMENT he opposes. He hates the whole thing.
Oscar
February 5th, 2013
11:40 pm
td – I know, we could call that a death panel.
td
February 5th, 2013
11:46 pm
Oscar
February 5th, 2013
11:40 pm
td – I know, we could call that a death panel.
Never thought of it that way but this death panel would make a great deal more sense then the one in Obamacare.
Yo Yo
February 5th, 2013
11:50 pm
Obamacare is going down.
Big Republican wins in 2014 and 2016 will erase this mess
moonbat betty
February 6th, 2013
12:01 am
Once economies know that obamamonics are through,
health and prosperity will flourish.
Tough it out 4 more years, America, and we can begin the healing process!
getalife
February 6th, 2013
12:09 am
The Republicans are moving to meet our President and compromise.
You will hate it but our country needs it.
Life will go on.
moonbat betty
February 6th, 2013
12:12 am
getalife, check yo self before you wreck you self.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsdj9NRzqC4
moonbat betty
February 6th, 2013
12:29 am
goodnight, getalife.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLpfbcXTeo8
bman.
February 6th, 2013
12:52 am
that’s right…sleep it off old timers
moonbat betty
February 6th, 2013
1:00 am
bman, I’m just winding down my 18 hour day.
Aloha!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adXY0Q1Eqzc
bman.
February 6th, 2013
1:03 am
moonbat .. .. i see you gained a few new fans this evening!
moonbat betty
February 6th, 2013
1:10 am
I hope so, bman. The more the merrier!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKz2U4fvA4U
Winnie
February 6th, 2013
1:52 am
Death Sentence iussed by “informed high level officials” ?? Well, I guess Due Process, Judges, juries are all so quaint now-a-days. I could not disagree more with this author.
Redcoat
February 6th, 2013
5:28 am
Lethal drones vs nonlethal interrogation…….look back in time and let’s see how Jay and friends stood after 9/11 and Bush’s approach through the years…..Bush is evil? Who do you trust now? Better be careful what you say and with whom you associate..you now will be subject to execution..and I know the left knows how easy things can be “twisted”.
Corbin Sharpe. I think, therefore I am...I think.
February 6th, 2013
6:02 am
Good Hump Day morning to all y’all…
Saw this, laughed, and thought I’d share…
http://cheezburger.com/7036108032
MiltonMan
February 6th, 2013
6:26 am
Lib Logic:
(1) Let’s close Gitmo so these poor, unfairly, misunderstood “people” can get a fair trial in the good ‘ole USA.
(2) Waterboarding is inhumane!!!
(3) Let’s blow them up on foreign soil if “we” believe they are a threat
Corbin Sharpe. I think, therefore I am...I think.
February 6th, 2013
6:33 am
REDCOAT,
Back when we had all those Gitmo prisoners and we wanted them tried in traditional courts instead of military tribunals, I was all for that. I felt it was a way to show the world that we were right and fair with our enemies…but…those people were already captured and in some cases kidnapped (I had no problem with that either), but they were in our control.
Any American citizen who aligns himself or herself with any foreign group that wants to do harm to Americans, forfeits any right of “due process”. If they are somehow captured, fine, then due process them, but do not put American lives in danger trying to capture them.
Drones prevent American deaths. They put the fear of Allah into the terrorists and give them a taste of their own medicine. I’m all for it. And think of this, the Middle Eastern Terrorist hides among their people for protection, so when we hit them there will be collateral damage. That will continue as long as their populace allows them in among them.
Remember too all of the innocent lives lost to suicide bombers, car bombs and IEDs. Drones can stop that by killing those who would order such atrocities.
I much prefer drones over boots on the ground.
TaxPayer
February 6th, 2013
6:41 am
Cons are fickle hypocrites.
Doggone/GA
February 6th, 2013
6:57 am
(1) Let’s close Gitmo so these poor, unfairly, misunderstood “people” can get a fair trial in the good ‘ole USA
Maybe you aren’t aware that 80-some off of those “poor, misunderstood people” have ALREADY been cleared for release…but we can’t return them home, because they are from Yemen and we will not let them go back there…and no other country will take them. So they’re stuck in limbo and still at GITMO.
Corbin Sharpe. I think, therefore I am...I think.
February 6th, 2013
7:07 am
BTW:
Kudos to Queen Elizabeth for being the Queen of the UK for six decades plus one year today,
A toast (mine with marmalade, please
) to Good Queen Betty!
Thomas Heyward Jr
February 6th, 2013
7:16 am
Clearly…………Osama Bin Laden won.
.
sigh
stands for decibels
February 6th, 2013
7:16 am
It’s about time we fight the Terrists with their own weapons—sneakiness, suddenness, and deadliness.
As is always the case with our RC at his/her best: take what’s posted, mirror-image that sucker, and you’ll find the truth.
Granny Godzilla
February 6th, 2013
7:16 am
Let’s all be real honest.
Most of us prefer the use of drones to boots on the ground.
AND
Each of us has a personal opinion regarding whichever President has or has had that
responsibility.
I won’t lie. I was less comfortable with that responsibilty in the hands of Presidents
who had bungled foreign policy and national security.
stands for decibels
February 6th, 2013
7:19 am
http://www.eschatonblog.com/2013/02/adapted-from-true-lies.html
stands for decibels
February 6th, 2013
7:22 am
GG @ 7.16, since these are decisions regarding our “war” you are basically correct.
My overarching question is, when does this “war” ever end?
Are we doomed to forever wage “war” against “people who want to destroy us” and continue to hand over power to the Commander in Chief to dispatch “soldiers” in a manner to his or her liking? Where’s this headed?
stands for decibels
February 6th, 2013
7:24 am
And I have to say, when it comes to complex issues like this, I really miss a proper threading capability and a clown filter.
repentcauseJISL
February 6th, 2013
7:29 am
Drones have killed 170 children….No US President has the right to kill an American Citizen without due process. If you open that door then its ok to kill them here! Stalin killed 20,000,000 citizens of USSR and it started with one!
hamiltonAZ
February 6th, 2013
7:30 am
– The targeted individual is “a senior operational leader of al Qaida or an associated force of an inner city gang — that is, a gang 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 U.S. citizens.”
– The capture of the individual located in a Toronto is deemed “infeasible.”
Can we seek out the gang leader and “drone” him without following these precepts?
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger…”
What if the only difference is that the person is located in the US?
stands for decibels
February 6th, 2013
7:31 am
We waterboarded three terrorists and ultimately got OBL from the intel
Thank you, Hollywood. You give so much and ask so little in return.
Redcoat
February 6th, 2013
7:31 am
But, but, but………It’s Obama…….yeah, I hear y’all…..good grief!
MiltonMan
February 6th, 2013
7:33 am
“Maybe you aren’t aware that 80-some off of those “poor, misunderstood people” have ALREADY been cleared for release…but we can’t return them home, because they are from Yemen and we will not let them go back there…and no other country will take them. So they’re stuck in limbo and still at GITMO.”
In reality, President Obama announced a moratorium on releasing any Yemenis from Guantánamo, which still stands
hamiltonAZ
February 6th, 2013
7:36 am
…or does the “public danger” clause cover the policy? If so, can you suppose how that may be extended? Laws like the Patriot Act and Supreme Court opinions over the last 20 years have eroded our fourth amendment protections to practically nothing.
Are we now going to accept the erosion of our fifth and fourteenth amendment rights as well?
I am not saying this policy as it applies to Al Qaeda is surely wrong, but it is certainly a subject worthy of debate.
Redcoat
February 6th, 2013
7:41 am
Politicians do not derive power from the middle……they are either left or right…….we are getting too much of both……..don’t you think? Left ok now with lethal drone against American Citizens…. Right ok now with more entitlement spending and no debt limits?……who would have thought? Up is down, wrong is right…….
Granny Godzilla
February 6th, 2013
7:42 am
stands for decibels
February 6th, 2013
7:22 am
GG @ 7.16, since these are decisions regarding our “war” you are basically correct.
My overarching question is, when does this “war” ever end?
Are we doomed to forever wage “war” against “people who want to destroy us” and continue to hand over power to the Commander in Chief to dispatch “soldiers” in a manner to his or her liking? Where’s this headed
.
.
.
All are most excellent questions. None of which we can answer definitively.
In the end all we can to is act responsibly and morally and pray that as a
species we will someday unlearn war.
stands for decibels
February 6th, 2013
7:42 am
When the country collapses and the citizens are no longer getting their handout they will start rioting and looting just as in Greece.
A wee remember: We could’ve had that^^ brilliant fiscal policy mindset in the White House right now, given the right circumstances.
Thomas Heyward Jr
February 6th, 2013
7:45 am
To Obama and crew…………..we are ALL brown people now.
Thomas Heyward Jr
February 6th, 2013
7:46 am
He’s “codified” it.
.
lol
stands for decibels
February 6th, 2013
7:46 am
When the President does it, that means it is not illegal.
alex
February 6th, 2013
7:53 am
Jay, have you gone to law school?
stands for decibels
February 6th, 2013
7:53 am
If we don’t have some sort of transparency with regard to the standards we’re employing in order to use these, then do we have any legitimate complaint coming when other nations follow our lead?
I admit I didn’t read all gazillion comments here, but did ANYONE bother to address this question raised by our Joe Hussein Mama?
I too have been concerned about this aspect of the program. In a few years this remote warfare technology is going to be dirt cheap and available to just about anyone with a few dollars, decent hand-eye coordination, and maybe a few friends in low places.
flagboy?
February 6th, 2013
7:58 am
The most interesting aspect of this post is most people will take information and find a way for that information to fit their own agenda/ideology/political affiliation.
stands for decibels
February 6th, 2013
7:58 am
Make no mistake–Jay is doing his due diligence; he has researched a topic, found some decent holes in a popular argument-against and made a decent argument-for. Per usual, Jay’s shown his work and gives us something that advances the discussion. I don’t claim to be smart enough to know if the Administration are being a bunch of power-mad wankers or actually acting in the best interest of the nation, and until I get smarter, I’ll have to keep myself open to new arguments.
That said, and echoing a sentiment/concern expressed here, to wit:
Can we seek out the gang leader and “drone” him without following these precepts?
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger…”
Far as I can tell, so long as we’re at “war” we can literally kill anyone we want.
stands for decibels
February 6th, 2013
7:59 am
State tax/tuition policy [try to stay awake] SHEETZ.
Corbin Sharpe. I think, therefore I am...I think.
February 6th, 2013
8:00 am
repentcauseJISL
February 6th, 2013
7:29 am
I’ll ask it again. What about the hundreds of children killed in suicide bomb and IED attacks? Where is your outrage for them?
Bottom line, any American Citizen who joins a foreign army dedicated to the destruction of our way of life forfeits due process and can be killed with impunity.
JohnnyReb
February 6th, 2013
8:03 am
stands for decibels
February 6th, 2013
7:42 am
When the country collapses and the citizens are no longer getting their handout they will start rioting and looting just as in Greece.
A wee remember: We could’ve had that^^ brilliant fiscal policy mindset in the White House right now, given the right circumstances.
___________________________
Such short selective memory. We have had a similar circustance – the LA riots after the King verdict. There were businesses that survived only because of guarding their property with guns/rifles.
Only liberals would think a LA type riot or worse can’t happen here. If the economy were to collapse be assured it will be worse than you can imagine. We have a large part of the populous who can’t survive on their own.
alex
February 6th, 2013
8:04 am
@Granny, let’s be honest..in our own way we all are. I don’t know where I come down on this but Jay’s arguemeent is adolescent. I AM distictly uncomfortable with any person ordering the killing of a fellow citizen without judicial overview, but I am not a lawyer and this is a discussion that MUST occur.I don’t give a damn who the president is or who the person is…
stands for decibels
February 6th, 2013
8:06 am
One last thing:
Kind of amazing that ctrl-F’ing these comments does not return a single solitary instance of the words “John Brennan”.
(the last name did appear in one URL, but nobody appears to care about WHY this issue is being brought to light right now, and why the white paper got leaked in the first place.)
headin’ upstairs.
stands for decibels
February 6th, 2013
8:09 am
Only liberals would think a LA type riot or worse can’t happen here.
and J-Reb, try to be a little less of a derriere-chapeau, will you? the point of my ridiculing Mittens for his “we R just like Greece” nonsense is because it’s a dumb form of shorthand, not because I believe that Americans are incapable of public displays of violent displeasure, fercryin’outloud.
/drive-by
Granny Godzilla
February 6th, 2013
8:13 am
alex
I would have had more respect for your point if you hadn’t included this:
I don’t know where I come down on this but Jay’s arguemeent is adolescent.
Granny Godzilla
February 6th, 2013
8:14 am
Only liberals would think a LA type riot or worse can’t happen here.
.
.
.
.
Piffle
Balboa Drive, Chicago 1968
Escaped from Email Purgatory
February 6th, 2013
8:28 am
We’re at war with fanatics. These folks pretty much devote their every waking moment to design and carry out ways to kill as many of us as possible.
I support the use of drones to take them wherever and whenever possible. Unfortunately a successful drone strike may inflict collateral damage.
I support the President’s use of drones for this purpose. I have confidence he’s identifying the right guys to kill with the strike. Seems doubtful that a sophisticated and expensive of ordnance like a drone would be used on a guy who joined the movement last week to meet chicks.
Besides, I think in their club, they get women after they off themselves. That’s what the recruiting posters say.
American citizen or not, they’ve turned against their country during wartime.
alex
February 6th, 2013
8:49 am
Your respect for me is unnecessary, PFILLE..get over yourself, your one word responses garner no respect, only chuckles. YOU and Jay have a majority of adolescent arguements, PFILLE.. again, get over yourself.. Any arguement that is one sided is adolescent as are the majority of your and Jays are PFILLE…..Thanks for the chuckle!
The 3 main points include one that requires: “an informed high-level official”..so that actually puts a large amount of responsibility for killing someone in someone ELSE, who is responsible to what organization (CIA)? I thought we outlawed that years ago… possible slippery slope..
vinny
February 6th, 2013
8:51 am
Jay – We don’t go out and kill bank robbers. They are arrested and tried by a jury of their peers.
That’s the point that you bedwetting liberals just don’t get.
Redcoat
February 6th, 2013
8:55 am
Escaped from Email Purgatory …………Were the Liberals confident Bush was targeting the “right guys” with the Patriot Act?….Gitmo? ………up is down… wrong is right ….confusing isn’t it?
Doesn't matter who's president
February 6th, 2013
9:15 am
Note to the President and his lawyers, from a liberal supporter:
“No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” -Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
Just a little reminder.
flagboy?
February 6th, 2013
9:43 am
Doesn’t matter who’s president
February 6th, 2013
9:15 am
Note to the President and his lawyers, from a liberal supporter:
“No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” -Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
Just a little reminder.
_________________________________
+1
BOHICA
February 6th, 2013
10:05 am
Jay, Glad to see you commenting on this. I guess you liked the movie “Minority Report” too!
BOHICA
February 6th, 2013
10:19 am
Jay,
Would you have supported the assasination of Ngo Dinh Diem during the Kennedy administration?
Jay
February 6th, 2013
10:33 am
“Would you have supported the assasination of Ngo Dinh Diem during the Kennedy administration?
Absolutely not.
mae brown
February 6th, 2013
10:51 am
I am sick unto death of Political Correctness….These bums stated and sworn objective is to KILL Americans….this is not a cocktail party…This is the enemy…..These people came here, attacked, killed and maimed….now we say “pretty please”……No, slap back,hit where they are found, protect our forces,do major damage, …..I wish I could remember the exact quote but something like ” If I can’t teach you to respect your elders, I’ll teach you to respect your betters”…Hit hard and often until the war of attrition penetrates their thick skulls that they had better go back to their caves and plot war on their neighbors….The USA has shown over and over we’ll not be bullied….they are the next in lne to learn…….
BOHICA
February 6th, 2013
10:55 am
Jay,
i agree with you. But why are you not on board with that action?
What is the difference between the perceived national security issues surrounding the CIA sponsored assasination of Diem and the current protocol as acted on by Obama and the NSA? I truly have a bad feeling about both.
Jay
February 6th, 2013
11:05 am
I guess I would distinguish between assassinating the leader of a U.S. ally who has become inconvenient to us and killing a terrorist who has pledged to attack and kill innocent American civilians and is actively working to do so. Those seem like vastly different situations to me.
BOHICA
February 6th, 2013
11:24 am
Jay,
…agree to disagree. thanks for the scintilating blog. see ya!
Escaped from Email Purgatory
February 6th, 2013
12:23 pm
@Redcoat
“Were the Liberals confident Bush was targeting the “right guys” with the Patriot Act?….Gitmo?…”
Good point. What about water boarding, too? Droning a bad guy into the next world is fine, but coercing a subject for potential intel created near apoplexy among many lefties.
I’m good with both practices.
Like you said Redcoat, it all depends on our perspective – as defined by our politics.
Adam
February 6th, 2013
2:12 pm
So how many “liberals don’t complain about drone wars when liberals do it” posts were there that completely missed the fact that Jay is a liberal complaining about the drone wars in the last five pages?
Tom Middleton
February 6th, 2013
2:33 pm
Well, liberals say we can’t use troops, and now they’re saying we can’t use drones. So what are we supposed to do, make more “decadent” Hollywood movies, in hopes all the America-hating terrorists will finally leave us alone? Just asking…
Tom Middleton
February 7th, 2013
6:02 am
Enter your comments here
Tom Middleton
February 7th, 2013
10:07 am
Jay, I should have said “some liberals” in my post of 2:33pm, and I sincerely apologize for leaving this out. When it comes to national security, it wasn’t all liberals I was talking about, just those who can only find fault with our defense instead of telling us what they think better and why.
It gets frustrating, of course, and I sensed this in everything you said. But when it comes to American terrorists abroad, well, it gets downright crazy.
Apparently regarding drone strikes, according to some liberals, it’s only American terrorists who deserve due process, not all them. And since it’s only the American ones they’re getting upset about as we speak, well, here we go again playing right into terrorists’ hands: trying to resemble the self-serving, decadent nation they claim we are.
I’m one of the many in our country ready to do most anything, to help the world free themselves to become what they want to be. But as far as I’m concerned, it doesn’t matter where they’re from: When they’ve declared war on America, they’ve had their day in court and pled guilty. PBO!