Jaffer, who directs the ACLU’s Center for Democracy, says the issue comes down to a fundamental question: Should any president have the power “to kill suspects on the basis of secret legal standards and facts that are never disclosed to the public or any court?” – Exposing Obama’s not-so-secret war, by Ari Melber
DOES ANYONE CARE about Pres. Obama’s executive overreach? No, is the obvious answer, because you couldn’t read and digest the New York Times “Kill List” reporting without sitting up in a start. Political strategists and campaign operatives likely don’t think “overreach” is a fair characterization. Reading Daniel Klaidman and others it’s hard to question it’s not.
Still, Obama’s willingness to back the drone program represented an early inflection point in his war on terror. Over time, the attacks grew—far beyond anything that had been envisioned by the Bush administration. When Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in December 2009, he had authorized more drone strikes than George W. Bush had approved during his entire presidency. By his third year in office, Obama had approved the killings of twice as many suspected terrorists as had ever been imprisoned in Guantánamo Bay. “We’re killing these sons of bitches faster than they can grow them,” the head of the CIA’s counterterrorism division boasted to The Washington Post in 2011. – Daniel Klaidman (May 28, Daily Beast)
Americans like our presidents carrying the biggest stick on the global block and on the whole we’re not very squeamish about who gets killed at our hands.
In effect Obama was inviting dissent with Admiral Mullen. None of the principals raised objections. But then Obama pointed to one of the uniformed men sitting just behind Mullen, against the wall: James “Hoss” Cartwright, the four-star Marine general and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Obama knew Cartwright, and valued his candor. “Mr. President, generally the wars we’ve been prosecuting have had these rules,” Cartwright said in a low-key, Midwestern manner. An enemy “did something to us, we went in and did something back—and then we had a moral obligation to put back together whatever we broke. In these places where they have not attacked us, we are looking for a person, not a country.” [source]
When it comes to domestic politics and the president’s license to kill, Democrats always feel they have something to prove, while Republicans, a paranoid lot, simply think it’s their duty to target and obliterate “enemies.” which they see around every corner.
It’s clear, at least to me, that Pres. Obama’s failure in closing down Guantanamo was a seminal moment, which the ousting of Greg Craig, a well liked popular Washington figure, foretold. Obama’s first collision with the national security complex that goes all the way down to Congress and keeping Democrats in office.
We’re also simply not to the point to consider what happens when drones get in the hands of unfriendly actors ready to target the United States.
The root lies in political parties, politicians and the U.S. bureaucracy, which doesn’t allow for taking on the system by one politician, whether it’s Pres. Obama or someone else. Eventually, whoever is president gets swallowed up in the national security fabric of the U.S.A., which demands reciprocity for the perception of danger as much as actual threats. The borg thinking Pres. Eisenhower warned of so long ago now includes a “homeland” security web that stretches throughout the Beltway and into neighboring states, where fighting the good fight is now even bigger business than Ike could have imagined.
Today, the Defense Department can target suspects in Yemen whose names they do not know. Officials say the criteria are tighter than those for signature strikes, requiring evidence of a threat to the United States, and they have even given them a new name — TADS, for Terrorist Attack Disruption Strikes. But the details are a closely guarded secret — part of a pattern for a president who came into office promising transparency. – The New York Times
Secretary Hillary Clinton strongly supports the drone strikes, as reported by the Times, though believes it’s critical to ascertain the “root causes of radicalization,” on which Pres. Obama agreed. So last September issues an executive order for approval of a State dept. war room to take on jihadi threats across the world in embassies.
However, nothing trumps the practical utilization of drones to get their man.
It’s a common thread of U.S. national security policy that no one ever imagined would link Barack Hussein Obama with George W. Bush on lethality, and put the Republican nominee Mitt Romney standing next to the President.
Drones aren’t torture, but it’s Pres. Obama’s version of threading the needle in the ongoing American “war on terror” that has gripped this nation fully and changed us forever.
People who like to lump President Obama with President Bush together when it comes to national security always forgot to mention one critical difference. Results! President Bush failed miserably, where President Obama as of the moment I write this has been wildly successful. Thousands of Americans on American soil died in terror attacks during the Bush years so far under President Obama? Not one! President Obama has a 100% record of keeping the American people safe from terror attacks and he accomplished this without torturing anyone. The two key reason for his success is sound judgement and the fact that unlike with domestic issues in the foreign policy arena President’s have a freer hand to do what they want. Translation? The GOP isn’t in a position to obstruct President Obama!
Thousands of Americans on American soil died in terror attacks during the Bush years so far under President Obama? Not one!
Hmm, what about the Fort Hood killings by Hasan??? That was a terrorist act. He was yelling allah akbar while he murdered Americans on American soil.
Hassan is a born and raised American citizen who is a member of the American military and stationed at Fort Hood. He wasn’t some foreigner who came here to attack us like the 9/11 hijackers were. Fort Hood was more akin to a workplace shooting than what happened on 9/11. As for that Allah Akbar stuff? There is a question whether he actually said that. Not that is changes the evil of what he did.
It was still a terrorist act committed on American soil during Obama’s reign.
Reign? Really?
Solo, you made it very clear quite some time ago that if Obama admitted to raping dead kittens in his spare time, you’d argue that at least he isn’t doing it while on the job, like ROMNEY would. You have become a caricature of an Obamapologist, and I feel really, really sorry for you.
And now you clearly think that as long as Obama “keeps us safe,” it’s ok if he works to make the United States a cage and all of us in fear of someday being murdered by a government Just Because. All that matters to you is that your team wins. Seriously, what is wrong with you?
Excuse me Solo, but how dare you !! I am thrilled that nothing has happened under President Obama, but I didn’t want a terrorist attack under President Bush neither. I never wanted what happened on 9/11 and I hope no other horrible tragedy happens on American soil again. I can not believe you would bring up terrorist attacks just to defend President Obama.
Oh, please. To quote Al Gore, that’s like the rooster taking credit for the sunrise.
If terror attacks were as certain as the sun rising in the morning, this world would be a really scary place. Not surprised though by your comment, people like you are left version of a Teabagger. People willing to ignore facts simply because they don’t like the conclusion those facts are certain to lead to. Roughly the equivalent of conservatives denying climate change because they don’t like were acknowledging that fact will lead to. I am sorry the fact that there hasn’t been any American deaths on American soil during President Obama’s administration upsets you so but that is a simply fact. President Obama has done an excellent job so far keeping the American public safe from terrorists. That is a fact you can twist your self into knots trying to avoid but one you will never be able to escape.
Actually, I have a marble in my pocket which has been keeping the terrorist attacks at bay.
You are a true sheep, clearly willing to surrender all of your rights and freedoms in exchange for what you would probably call “security.” Well, you are welcome- but don’t try to sell me on doing the same.
I’m not in favor of tearing up the Bill of Rights because dopes like you wet their pants at the thought of another terrorist attack. Freedom does have a price- and that price is something less than 100 percent security. I’ll take it. You want to live in a secure cage, as long as the jailer is Obama. Please, stop voting.
Typical paranoid nonsense! The evil government is coming to get me. Tell me is your house stocked with bottled water and canned food? Are you sure your not a Teabagger? Since President Obama was sworn in has anyone from the federal government shown up at your house who wasn’t handing you your mail?
Nice try, but being concerned about “legal” execution of Americans overseas and abroad, predator drones being used to spy on Americans, etc. doesn’t make me paranoid. It makes me Awake. And Concerned.
When you wake up from your sleep, you can join the grownups who think that liberty is more important than party loyalty.
And maybe you could even bring yourself to admit that if this crap was going on under a Republican, you’d be at the forefront denouncing it. You pay a high price in credibility for your partisanship. I’m not interested in selling out- you, apparently, went cheap.
Here’s how lapdogs like Solo deal with criticism against political leaders they like:
2002: “I’m really concerned about the Patriot Act.”
Solo: “Me too, it’s a terrible breach of the Constitution, George Bush is acting like a Dictator.”
2012: “I’m really concerned about the Patriot Act, drones being used to spy on Americans, and the murder of Americans without trial here and abroad.”
Solo: “Oh man, what a paranoid whack job you are! Are you a survivalist? Do you live in a bomb shelter? I bet you think 9/11 was an inside job and that Area 51 has aliens hidden in it, don’t you?”
Hey Solo, does your “criticism of the government is insane when a Democrat is President” bit ever really work in your social circles? I mean, have you ever successfully shut people up by calling them paranoid weirdos for suggesting disapproval of government actions?
If so, you’ve chosen your friends well- they are as weak-minded, spineless and susceptible to bluff and bluster as you clearly are.
Was the failure to close Guantanamo a failure of President Obama? Decidedly no. Both Barack Obama and John McCain promised to close Guantamo Bay and both saw Gitmo as a blight on national honor. The failure to close Gitmo was a failure of obstructionists in the political class, both Democrats and Republicans, pandering to the irrantional fears of Muslims and bringing terrorists to the US. As far as targetting Al-Queda and affilited terrorists is concerned, few see this an infringement of anyone’s civil liberties save the paranoid Progressive class who think they may be on some ‘terrorist’ list.
Its why Progressives never win national elections, they are more concerned about the civll rights of terrorists than the safety of American citizens and the military.
Its why Progressives never win national elections
Just when I think you can’t write anything dumber…
Barack Obama wouldn’t have become president without progressive activists who were responsible for him winning the nomination. If that base doesn’t come out he won’t be reelected either.
I’m not a movement progressive, but your pathological hysteria against them is counterproductive on Obama’s behalf.
Way to avoid the point Taylor! RAJensen never said President Obama didn’t need progressive votes to win in 2008, he said that when progressives run themselves for national office they almost always lose. You yourself keep pointing out how right wing President Obama is yet he is the first Dem since 1964 to get a clear majority of the vote in a Presidential election.
My apologies for correcting RAJensen. I won’t further the discussion by doing the same with you, solo.
Please keep this thread on topic, which is drones, etc.
Your the one who took the conversation off topic. I was responding to what you said.
As far as targetting Al-Queda and affilited terrorists is concerned, few see this an infringement of anyone’s civil liberties save the paranoid Progressive class who think they may be on some ‘terrorist’ list.
This hubris turned out so well for so many in Germany in the 1930′s and 1940′s; let’s run with it!
Nazis! Your comparing the Obama administration? OMG! Now I know your crazy!
You are really strange, and ignorant. It’s sheep like you who happily wave your flags (or in your case, Obama posters) as rights get slowly wittled away. You simply don’t give a damn about true liberty and freedom, as long as your guy can claim a victory.
I don’t want to live under a system in which infringement of constitutional rights and freedoms are just fine as long as a Democrat is in the White House.
Nazis! Your comparing the Obama administration?
No, to be precise, I’m comparing blind followers like yourself to Nazi sympathizers. That you can’t, or choose not to, see the distinction isn’t really surprising, given your Obamabotitis.
You lost the argument the second you brought Nazi Germany into the conversation.
Don’t think so, but your laughable attempt to play scorekeeper gave me a chuckle this morning so thanks for that.
I guess we can’t say Obama is not a good student. He saw the Republicans form an oligarchy around who gets money and who doesn’t…….and decided to do them one better…..now there’s a Democratic oligarchy who gets to decide who lives and who dies.
without torturing anyone. yes, very humane……give them death by explosive percussion in a matter of seconds.
Your last sentence resounds LOUDLY.
I’ve been following the drone stories over the last few years.Writing about them has resulted in some thoughtful conversations.
Sometimes, though, the conversation seems mostly about the color in which the drone is draped: red or blue are the only choices, of course. Which is a good color and which a bad depends on the Right or Left view.
It’s much bigger, Joyce.
It’s about a bureaucratic system that wraps both Dems & GOPers in its embrace, from which no one can escape. It’s now who we are.
It’s one reason the example of Barack Obama is so important. He came in with other ideas, including a constitutional background, but got sucked up and in regardless.
Gitmo, for me, was his defining moment and the primary inflection point…
Bureaucratic inertia is undoubtedly a problem, as is political fear-mongering. I can’t think of a case where Obama actually tried to oppose those forces, though, in any policy area. Whatever his convictions in this area, they don’t appear to be very strong. If he folded, as opposed to just didn’t care, it happened so quickly it’s hard to imagine there was genuine passion in the man that he would have to put aside here.
This is one time when I could be engaging in wishful thinking. I’d hate to think that those forces are beyond control by either a President or a party that’s supposedly in control of the government. But I don’t see any evidence that Obama ever really cared.
Cock-a-doodle-doo!
“Post hoc ergo propter hoc.” This is the fallacy that because one thing followed another, the first caused the second. One example (the one Gore referred to), was Reagan taking credit for the fall of the Berlin wall. Assuming that we have not had a major attack on American soil (historically a rather rare thing) because of drone strikes and other actions is a similar error in assumption. Indeed, historically, most terrorist attacks on Americans on American soil have been perpatrated by other Americans.
Oh, stop bringing logic into the discussion. It just confuses people.
Oh yeah, the collapse of a political philosophy and stopping car bombs from going off in American cities is exactly the same thing.
Actually, the Times Square attempt at a bomb was spotted by a t-shirt vendor.
T-shirt vendor for president please!
The only reason I didn’t was that I assumed there was a process like this in place. DC loves it some bureaucracy, particularly when that bureaucracy spreads the blame for a process to unnamed bureaucrats.
It continues to amaze me that there are so few progressives criticizing this campaign. From both an ethical and a pragmatic perspective, it’s a disaster. Yet here we are doing it anyway, with hardly a peep from the folks who supposedly care about making the world a better place. I have no doubt that if this were a Republican President or a foreign government doing these things we’d see far more criticism of it.
Let me just add that I think that “head of the CIA couterterrorism division” sounds like an idiot. When we kill at least as many innocent civilians as known terrorists in these strikes, the nearly inevitable result is that we create more potential terrorists than we kill. People who have lost their families or life long friends tend to want revenge.
Here we run into the problem with the label “terrorist” or “terror attacks.” Hasan’s motive is really only known to him but he did express angry opposition to the war in Iraq. Of course, you can be opposed to the war and not attack. Still, it seems to have more in common with anti-government attacks like the McVey attack than someone “going postal.” Either way, it wasn’t stopped by drone attacks.
I’ve never been a soldier let alone a war, but I’ve been in two nasty fist fights. And one thing that I realized quick is no matter how justified one is or not, it still is nasty. It smells nasty, looks nasty, tastes nasty, and is generally nasty business. So I didn’t react with a start when I read about the “kill list” because I always figured this was part of being President when a enemy needed to be eliminated. Albeit targeted or a full-fledged battle. I just imagined all of the nasty decisions that comes across a President’s desk and what that person has to do.
The larger issue in my eyes is when is enough, ENOUGH? When will the drone attacks stop? Is there an endgame? A overall plan? The drone plan?
To be brutally honest, I don’t lose sleep over terrorists dying. Whether by torture or massive explosion. Those criminals kidnap people and cut their heads off for a statement. Innocent people. Yes I’m generalizing. And the question about who’s really a terrorist or not is a question that has plagued groups, clans, kingdoms, empires since time immemorial. Who are the bad guys/gals? Did we get the right person(s)? Those are overall humanity questions that are out-of-scope for:
Hollywood! – Election 2012 Edition!