Discussion in 'Current Events' started by BIV, Jan 17, 2013.
God damn biased librul media!
Opposing drone strikes is not a liberal notion?
I thought you were being ironic because they were attacking Obama.
I see Kirk post all the time that liberals have no problem with the drone strikes because it's Obama doing it now, when the NY Times, Washington Post and others have been pretty harsh about it the whole time.
Liberals and Libertarians are the ones that I see opposing them.
I'm not opposed to them. Anything that lets us kill savages without risking our own soldiers' lives is a win-win in my book. I credit them for minimizing the effect and influence of al Qaeda in Yemen. Way too many of them there and impossible to get enough boots on the ground the to effectively deal with them.
However, I don't like how the administration has "changed" the definition of enemy combatant to pad their stats and minimize the civilian casualty numbers.
As long as they're using them on bad guys, I fully support drones.
The Drone Strikes themselves don't bother me. Here's what does bother me:
1. This administration and its supporters have the audacity to comment on the civilian casualties of Israeli airstrikes in Gaza, which are much MUCH lower than their own, instead of publicly defending Israel's decision to use precision airstrikes that produced over 99% accuracy during the recent skirmish. I'd at the very least expect the Obama administration to appreciate that kind of strategy.
2. The vast majority of the American public seem comfortable with the idea of killing people in other countries as long as it is sanitized killing. Just like back in the "Cruise Missile" and "Smart Bomb" era, drone strikes allow Americans to ignore the ugly realities of that stuff, whereas the mere idea of "boots on the ground" causes complete apoplexy. The ugliness and necessity of killing your enemies shouldn't be something that you can easily ignore. It's serious business, shouldn't be taken lightly, and should also be understood to be a necessary evil.
And I give Obama full kudos for going hard at some big targets. Awlaki and the rest of AQAP's command were decimated by drone strikes. But that's the stuff that a lot of his own support base doesn't appreciate.
If Bush killed 168 kids and thousands of innocent adults just to get 20 to 30 "suspects", liberals would use it as a reason to not vote for him and they would demand he be tried for war crimes. Bush water boarded suspects and the libs threw a hissy fit and wanted Bush arrested and tried and impeached and blah blah. Obama kills 50 innocent people for every one "suspect" and we don't hear them calling for war crime trials or impeachment, instead they give him 4 more years. Killing those 50 people created a lot more new enemies for the US than it takes down. If libs were against Obama drone strikes they wouldn't have voted for him. I hear Cenk talk about drone strikes and the NDAA all the time but when it came time for the elections he was campaigning every day for Obama.
I didn't see the progressive establishment give Bush a peace prize.
I fully expect the establishment to turn on Obama at sometime in his presidency and start pushing the next guy as our lord and savior who will make everything great.... unless he tries to repeal the 22nd to get a 3rd term.
That meme is actually pretty funny.
The Constitution, when it gives the President the power to lead wars. War is an activity that involves killing the enemy.
If Americans side with any enemy Congress declared war to, the President has the power to kill them.
Has congress declared war against Pakistan, or Yemen, or Libya? I guess the NDAA did declare war against Americans by saying America is considered a battlefield.
Senators Demand the Military Lock Up of American Citizens in a “Battlefield” They Define as Being Right Outside Your Window
Lincoln killed a lot of Americans and they are trying to associate Obama with Lincoln.
I don't like the idea of the President having a literal hit list, along with the power to have American citizens assassinated off the battlefield designated by Congress with the wave of his hand. That's way too much power.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Al Awlaki was not a Pakistani, Yemeni, or Libyan soldier. The US war against Al Qaeda is in fact legal and authorized by Congress.
"off the battlefield" is your spin, not fact. There is nothing in the US Constitution defining the battlefield the way you're defining it. Any objective interpretation puts the battlefield wherever the enemy happens to be. The only restriction on that is the use of the military on US soil without express congressional authorization.
The liberal media is biased against anyone who defends the United States in any way, including Obama. This article is perfectly in line with their bias.
<tinfoilhatDon>We need to oppose drone strikes because they won't be satisfied with just using them against non-Americans. Wait until you start rising up against the government!</tinfoilhatDon>
You joke, but of course they'll be used if the shit hits the fan.
So if they want to attack something they can just say that Al Qaeda is there and that will make it ok? Why did our government send support to Al Qaeda rebels in Libya and Syria? Shouldn't they have backed Gaddafi and Assad if Al Qaeda is the boogeyman?
First, the area of operations is to be defined in the declaration of war which must be approved by Congress. Secondly, you're not seeing my point. The President should not (and does not) have the authority to snap his fingers and make people disappear anywhere in the world except here. I've had enough of that executive ego trip. The President is not a fucking warlord, nor is he a king or an emperor. He shouldn't be able to just do as he pleases, even in the realm of war. It's stupid to say otherwise. The powers of the Presidency need to be as tightly controlled just as the rest of the government's power should be. You can talk about terrorists all you want, but the United States government and its chief executive pose a much more potent and immediate threat than al-Qaeda. Fighting terrorism has been the excuse our government has used to justify it's latest power-grabbing sprees. Allowing the President to play god with our enemies is just another chapter of that book and will one day be turned against the people of the United States.
Where are you getting this from? There's nothing that says that, in the Constitution. The constitution grants Congress the power to declare war. That's it. It says nothing about any area of operations. The US has fought a global war before, this isn't the first time.
War is two sides trying to systematically kill each other. The President is the commander of one of those sides. The whole purpose of his title as Commander in Chief is to lead the effort to KILL all enemies.
If he can't do that, what could it possibly mean for Congress to declare war? There is no other possible interpretation of that phrase, except that Congress is telling the US military, lead by the Commander in Chief, to go and kill the enemy.
Which part? The killing the enemy, or the President commanding the government agency that's killing the enemy (the military).
They are. He is only allowed to kill the enemy if Congress tells him to. Not only that, but Congress must authorize funding for any military effort he might undertake, and they have the power to impeach him at any point.
Other than banning war and disbanding the US military, I can't imagine anything more limited than that.
I'm not talking about "terrorists", I'm talking about a specific group of American enemies: Al Qaeda.
That has nothing to do with this conversation. The President of the United States has been ordering the killing of people in war long before terrorism was a word. That's all Obama has done, by ordering the killing of Al Awlaki. He is not relying on any power given to the President after 1789, to do that. If Congress had passed no laws since then, except the one authorizing military action against Al Qaeda (please don't tell me you disagree with that), he would still have the power to kill any American who associates themselves with Al Qaeda.
No. If the President attacks someone he wasn't authorized to attack, and lies about it claiming that it was Al Qaeda, then Congress has the power to investigate and impeach him.
I don't know. Ask your fucking congressman, don't change the subject. We are talking about the decision to kill Anwar Al Awlaki, not Libya.
I'm pretty confident that the military will not deploy any weapons against Americans protesting the government, under any circumstances.