N.Y. Times Op-Ed bashes Obama on drone strikes for assassination

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
78,642
27,397
898
Seattle
#1
N.Y. Times Op-Ed bashes Obama on drone strikes for assassination


By Rachel Rose Hartman, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – 2 hrs 34 mins ago

"Who Says You Can Kill Americans, Mr. President?" a scathing New York Times op-ed asked Thursday.

The opinion piece, written by Vicki Divoll, former general counsel to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and former deputy legal adviser to the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center, heaps criticism on the administration for the practice of using drone strikes for assassination and calls for greater transparency.

Divoll writes:
Mr. Obama should declassify and release, to Congress, the press and the public, documents that set forth the detailed constitutional and statutory analysis he relies on for targeting and killing American citizens. Perhaps Mr. Obama still believes that, in a democracy, the people have a right to know the legal theories upon which the president executes his great powers. Certainly, we can hope so. After all, his interpretation might be wrong.​


Divoll notes the known killings of three American citizens who were suspected terrorists: Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical American-born Muslim cleric; Samir Khan, a naturalized American citizen who edited an English-language magazine and was with Awlaki at the time of his death; and Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who were all killed overseas.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...-obama-assassination-132610596--politics.html
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#6
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.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,803
18,539
513
Kingdom of Charis
#7
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.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#8
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.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,803
18,539
513
Kingdom of Charis
#10
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.
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.
 

KRSOne

Registered User
Dec 8, 2011
13,023
2,987
258
Sunnydale
#11
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.
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.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#13
"Who Says You Can Kill Americans, Mr. President?"
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.
 

KRSOne

Registered User
Dec 8, 2011
13,023
2,987
258
Sunnydale
#14
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

The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. Even Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) raised his concerns about the NDAA detention provisions during last night’s Republican debate. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.
Lincoln killed a lot of Americans and they are trying to associate Obama with Lincoln.
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,156
12,936
373
Atlanta, GA
#15
As long as they're using them on bad guys, I fully support drones.
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.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#17
Has congress declared war against Pakistan, or Yemen, or Libya?
Al Awlaki was not a Pakistani, Yemeni, or Libyan soldier. The US war against Al Qaeda is in fact legal and authorized by Congress.

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.
"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.
 
Last edited:

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#18
Yourjokemakesnosense.jpg.

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.
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,446
8,613
693
Silverdale, WA
#19
As long as they're using them on bad guys, I fully support drones.
<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>
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#20
<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.
 

KRSOne

Registered User
Dec 8, 2011
13,023
2,987
258
Sunnydale
#21
Al Awlaki was not a Pakistani, Yemeni, or Libyan soldier. The US war against Al Qaeda is in fact legal and authorized by Congress.
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?
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,156
12,936
373
Atlanta, GA
#22
"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.
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.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#23
First, the area of operations is to be defined in the declaration of war which must be approved by Congress.
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.
The President should not (and does not) have the authority to snap his fingers and make people disappear anywhere in the world ... even in the realm of war
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.
It's stupid to say otherwise.
Which part? The killing the enemy, or the President commanding the government agency that's killing the enemy (the military).
The powers of the Presidency need to be as tightly controlled just as the rest of the government's power should be.
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.

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.
I'm not talking about "terrorists", I'm talking about a specific group of American enemies: 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
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.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#24
So if they want to attack something they can just say that Al Qaeda is there and that will make it ok?
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.
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?
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.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#25
You joke, but of course they'll be used if the shit hits the fan.
I'm pretty confident that the military will not deploy any weapons against Americans protesting the government, under any circumstances.