Daily Beast - "Inside Obama's Killing Machine"

[OCGuy]

The official is right, there has been little outcry over assassination compared to torture. It likely has to do with the Republican image of having a fetish for torture.

Huh? Obama is doing the killing now, not a Republican.


There is little outcry because most people dont support torture, but I bet most people, including most US Democrats, support killing Jihadis.

 

[jackschmittusa]

I'm sure everyone will support Canada if they suspect an enemy of the (their) state is suspected of being in Buffalo and they launch a Hellfire missile to take him out. A few bucks and an apology will cover the collateral damage too. Right?

How about Mexico taking out a cartel leader the same way in Texas? We would all agree he was a bad guy, so it's OK then?

And the previous argument that Pakistan can't control all of its geography negates its sovereignty; can't the same argument be made of the U.S. since we seem to have such porous borders?

Targeting individuals for death while not operating under a declaration of war seems like assassination to me.

I'm all for stopping the terrorists, but I still can't see how we are the "good guys" and do this.

Must be my screwed-up atheist morality that prevents me from seeing how we can pick someone to be judge, jury, and executioner of people none of us have ever met, never formally charged with a crime, never presented evidence of their guilt, etc.. And if we kill innocent people too while we're doing it, well, life just sucks for them.

Would it be easier for me to understand if I were a Christian? Did Jesus have rules for killing that would make it clear to me?

Just to be clear myself, I fail to see how this is really a Left vs Right issue. I see it as a personal moral issue, and little else. The Right in general, and the religious Right in particular, proclaim to the high heavens that they are "pro life" and this is the moral high ground. And yet, it is these same people that seem to support the death penalty, pre-emptive war, and the type of assassination under discussion here. Is it any wonder that my personal moral code precludes me from supporting any such people?

I suppose the post won't be complete until I also spell it out in simple words, I disagree with Obama on the current policy. My personal moral code tells me that it is wrong.

 

[pcgeek11]

Damned if you don't; Damned if you do...

The left isn't screaming out because Obama is doing it. If GWB were doing this they would be hanging from the trees and screaming. You know it and I know it.

 

[Nebor]

I'm sure everyone will support Canada if they suspect an enemy of the (their) state is suspected of being in Buffalo and they launch a Hellfire missile to take him out. A few bucks and an apology will cover the collateral damage too. Right?

How about Mexico taking out a cartel leader the same way in Texas? We would all agree he was a bad guy, so it's OK then?

And the previous argument that Pakistan can't control all of its geography negates its sovereignty; can't the same argument be made of the U.S. since we seem to have such porous borders?

Targeting individuals for death while not operating under a declaration of war seems like assassination to me.

I'm all for stopping the terrorists, but I still can't see how we are the "good guys" and do this.

Must be my screwed-up atheist morality that prevents me from seeing how we can pick someone to be judge, jury, and executioner of people none of us have ever met, never formally charged with a crime, never presented evidence of their guilt, etc.. And if we kill innocent people too while we're doing it, well, life just sucks for them.

Would it be easier for me to understand if I were a Christian? Did Jesus have rules for killing that would make it clear to me?

Just to be clear myself, I fail to see how this is really a Left vs Right issue. I see it as a personal moral issue, and little else. The Right in general, and the religious Right in particular, proclaim to the high heavens that they are "pro life" and this is the moral high ground. And yet, it is these same people that seem to support the death penalty, pre-emptive war, and the type of assassination under discussion here. Is it any wonder that my personal moral code precludes me from supporting any such people?

I suppose the post won't be complete until I also spell it out in simple words, I disagree with Obama on the current policy. My personal moral code tells me that it is wrong.

1) The Canadians don't have hellfire missiles, so everything else in your post is automatically invalidated.
2) We're not the good guys. We're the guy's killing the guys that are operating contrary to our nation's interest, through whatever means necessary.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

The people who we're blowing up are not criminal defendants in the United States. They have no right to a trial or due process.

er uh maybe thats the point, it shouldnt be a capital crime to not support us exploitation of your country. the us has no right to assassinate people in foreign countries, they have no right to even be in those countries. i realize that showing respect for international borders is difficult for most americans to understand

americans that commit murders/assassinations SHOULD be criminal defendants in the countries in which they committed their crimes

 

[Nebor]

er uh maybe thats the point, it shouldnt be a capital crime to not support us exploitation of your country. the us has no right to assassinate people in foreign countries, they have no right to even be in those countries. i realize that showing respect for international borders is difficult for most americans to understand

americans that commit murders/assassinations SHOULD be criminal defendants in the countries in which they committed their crimes

Yeah, but if a US Air Force Officer sitting in a trailer in Nevada is flying a Predator drone in Afghanistan and it fires a missile, strikes and kills someone in Pakistan, where is he going to stand trial? The jurisdiction issues alone would take a decade to work out. Best to just let it drop.

 

[Nebor]

er uh maybe thats the point, it shouldnt be a capital crime to not support us exploitation of your country. the us has no right to assassinate people in foreign countries, they have no right to even be in those countries. i realize that showing respect for international borders is difficult for most americans to understand

americans that commit murders/assassinations SHOULD be criminal defendants in the countries in which they committed their crimes

In case my above post wasn't clear enough: Who's gonna stop us? You?

 

[wuliheron]

It's not war, it's empire. It's a license to kill nationalists and patriots for opposing occupying/placing a dictator/influencing elections/other meddling in their nation.

It has more to do with US agencies justifying their budgets by always pursuing more 'threats to our power' and finding more 'enemies' than defending the US itself.

And if the people there fight us even more, maybe even arrange a terrorist attack here - more justification for more funding of the machine.

Agreed. The US military is equal to the next seven largest in the world combined. Anyone who thinks we need all that just to defend the US is nuts. We are policing our empire and ensuring all the things we want and need like oil keep flowing back to Rome.

The presidency is even beginning to resemble the living Gods of old with the powers of judge, jury, and executioner conferred upon him. All we need now is for a hero to be elected and declare himself emperor for life.

 

[werepossum]

I'm sure everyone will support Canada if they suspect an enemy of the (their) state is suspected of being in Buffalo and they launch a Hellfire missile to take him out. A few bucks and an apology will cover the collateral damage too. Right?

How about Mexico taking out a cartel leader the same way in Texas? We would all agree he was a bad guy, so it's OK then?

And the previous argument that Pakistan can't control all of its geography negates its sovereignty; can't the same argument be made of the U.S. since we seem to have such porous borders?

Targeting individuals for death while not operating under a declaration of war seems like assassination to me.

I'm all for stopping the terrorists, but I still can't see how we are the "good guys" and do this.

Must be my screwed-up atheist morality that prevents me from seeing how we can pick someone to be judge, jury, and executioner of people none of us have ever met, never formally charged with a crime, never presented evidence of their guilt, etc.. And if we kill innocent people too while we're doing it, well, life just sucks for them.

Would it be easier for me to understand if I were a Christian? Did Jesus have rules for killing that would make it clear to me?

Just to be clear myself, I fail to see how this is really a Left vs Right issue. I see it as a personal moral issue, and little else. The Right in general, and the religious Right in particular, proclaim to the high heavens that they are "pro life" and this is the moral high ground. And yet, it is these same people that seem to support the death penalty, pre-emptive war, and the type of assassination under discussion here. Is it any wonder that my personal moral code precludes me from supporting any such people?

I suppose the post won't be complete until I also spell it out in simple words, I disagree with Obama on the current policy. My personal moral code tells me that it is wrong.

A country with claims that a terrorist is operating within the United States can come to us, have him picked up, and have their evidence fairly adjudicated. In many Islamic states, including much of Pakistan, this is by far not the case. I don't expect you to understand the difference, but you should be capable of understanding that there IS a difference even if its exact significance eludes you.

And we are under a declaration of war. Congress authorized military force. There is no prescribed magic wording that makes a valid declaration of war - although I too would be happier if Congress would simply say "We declare war on X" so as to end this nattering.

 

[JS80]

I applaud these strikes by the CIA/Obama.

But do you applaud his/ATPN commies' hypocrisy?

 

[alphatarget1]

Where is the liberal outrage from Moonbeam and Phokus et al?

 

[JSt0rm]

Most liberals here would argue that our constitution and all rights granted to US citizens apply to all individuals on this Earth.

Is that the liberal position today?

 

[JTsyo]

it's not a question of arrest them or kill them. During the Bush era the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq were capturing prisoners in the field. The targets that are being hit now are in areas where there is no US troops to take prisoners. SO the option is take them out or let them live. I think the difference seen is the phase of the war we're in now.

 

[werepossum]

it's not a question of arrest them or kill them. During the Bush era the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq were capturing prisoners in the field. The targets that are being hit now are in areas where there is no US troops to take prisoners. SO the option is take them out or let them live. I think the difference seen is the phase of the war we're in now.

Valid point, although the article implies that we're not taking chances to capture prisoners under the same conditions we would have before.

 

[Lemon law]

Yeah, but if a US Air Force Officer sitting in a trailer in Nevada is flying a Predator drone in Afghanistan and it fires a missile, strikes and kills someone in Pakistan, where is he going to stand trial? The jurisdiction issues alone would take a decade to work out. Best to just let it drop.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other words Nebor uses the ole jurisdictional defense to justify questionable or illegal American tactics.

But cheer up Nebor, your fine US Air force Officer will never stand trial, but instead every one in the Pakistani tribal region will be judge jury and executioner of the American people, and then the USA will wonder, why gee, we got hit with another 911. And what did we do to deserve it?

Its not that they hate our freedoms, they hate our murdering ways.

 

[jackschmittusa]

werepossum

"A country with claims that a terrorist is operating within the United States can come to us, have him picked up, and have their evidence fairly adjudicated."

Certainly not always true. People who were declared criminals and terrorists by other countries have been invited to the WH. In light of this, I find your "difference" meaningless.

Many of the Mexican drug cartels are no less than terrorist groups, and we are known far and wide to offer immunity, new identities, and money in exchange for information from even known murderers. How much faith and trust does this inspire in other governments?

How ironic that people that profess little or no faith in their own government's ability or willingness to do the right thing think that other countries should "just trust us".

What we are doing is not "war" in any traditional sense, declared or any otherwise. The word war has been diluted to an incredible extent in this country, war on poverty, war on drugs, war on terror, etc.. Simply using the word war now seems to give license to the use of extraordinary measures to suppress whatever the war-of-the-day happens to be. I happen to think the whole situation has gotten out of hand. We trample on the rights of our own citizens, we kill people in sovereign countries on the flimsiest of suspicions, we accept the killing of innocent people as ordinary, commonplace, and acceptable (using the word "war" for the actions means you don't have to feel guilty).

I am not anti-war. I believe war is a useful tool for self defense and the defense of others. I believe our country has fought several wars for righteous cause, and is entitled to do so in the future if the need arises. I would describe the war on terror more as a global police action against a gang of killers. I believe the reputation of the country is at stake in how we handle our actions against them.

As always, I wish the best outcome for our country and wish our country to always achieve high standing in the global community. I believe our current course is counter-productive to these objectives.

 

[Fern]

Damned if you don't; Damned if you do...

The left isn't screaming out because Obama is doing it. If GWB were doing this they would be hanging from the trees and screaming. You know it and I know it.

Yup.

If this was GWB I firmly believe the media (cable news in particular) would be raising holy h3ll about it.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

werepossum

"A country with claims that a terrorist is operating within the United States can come to us, have him picked up, and have their evidence fairly adjudicated."

Certainly not always true. People who were declared criminals and terrorists by other countries have been invited to the WH. In light of this, I find your "difference" meaningless.

Many of the Mexican drug cartels are no less than terrorist groups, and we are known far and wide to offer immunity, new identities, and money in exchange for information from even known murderers. How much faith and trust does this inspire in other governments?

How ironic that people that profess little or no faith in their own government's ability or willingness to do the right thing think that other countries should "just trust us".

What we are doing is not "war" in any traditional sense, declared or any otherwise. The word war has been diluted to an incredible extent in this country, war on poverty, war on drugs, war on terror, etc.. Simply using the word war now seems to give license to the use of extraordinary measures to suppress whatever the war-of-the-day happens to be. I happen to think the whole situation has gotten out of hand. We trample on the rights of our own citizens, we kill people in sovereign countries on the flimsiest of suspicions, we accept the killing of innocent people as ordinary, commonplace, and acceptable (using the word "war" for the actions means you don't have to feel guilty).

I am not anti-war. I believe war is a useful tool for self defense and the defense of others. I believe our country has fought several wars for righteous cause, and is entitled to do so in the future if the need arises. I would describe the war on terror more as a global police action against a gang of killers. I believe the reputation of the country is at stake in how we handle our actions against them.

As always, I wish the best outcome for our country and wish our country to always achieve high standing in the global community. I believe our current course is counter-productive to these objectives.

Bolded what you evidently missed. A claim is not enough, else Iran and Venezuela would have us executing each other all day long. A country must also provide sufficient evidence to prove it to our satisfaction in our courts and/or to our State Department for extradition.

Nonetheless I applaud you for at least paying lip service to wishing the best for our country. Far too many progressives simply call us evil and have done with it.

 

[Nebor]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other words Nebor uses the ole jurisdictional defense to justify questionable or illegal American tactics.

But cheer up Nebor, your fine US Air force Officer will never stand trial, but instead every one in the Pakistani tribal region will be judge jury and executioner of the American people, and then the USA will wonder, why gee, we got hit with another 911. And what did we do to deserve it?

Its not that they hate our freedoms, they hate our murdering ways.

If we get hit with another 9/11, it's because we don't have GWB actively working to prevent it anymore.

 

[marincounty]

If we get hit with another 9/11, it's because we don't have GWB actively working to prevent it anymore.

I nominate this for post of the year.

 

[Nebor]

I nominate this for post of the year.

In "Decision Points" he basically says that after 9/11, he dedicated his presidency entirely to preventing another such attack, and he was successful.

On an unrelated note, can I interest anyone in purchasing this rock:

It keeps tigers away. You don't see any tigers around, do you?

 

[marincounty]

Yup.

If this was GWB I firmly believe the media (cable news in particular) would be raising holy h3ll about it.

Fern

Obama is not invading countries that didn't attack us. Obama is also not removing troops from a country that did attack us to a country that didn't . See the difference?
Oh yeah, where is Osama?

 

[marincounty]

In "Decision Points" he basically says that after 9/11, he dedicated his presidency entirely to preventing another such attack, and he was successful.

On an unrelated note, can I interest anyone in purchasing this rock:

It keeps tigers away. You don't see any tigers around, do you?

What did he do to keep us safe before 9/11?

 

[Nebor]

What did he do to keep us safe before 9/11?

Uh, drew up plans for invading Iraq? Precaution is an important part of safety....

 

[Lemon law]

If we get hit with another 9/11, it's because we don't have GWB actively working to prevent it anymore.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GWB was the biggest idiot in the entire world. His so called war on terror has created far more terrorists than its killed. Meanwhile the USA is bleeding money and treasure which was exactly Ossama Bin Laden's original intent. Why should AL-Quida attack America, when the USA is busily engaging in jumping off every available cliff?

Nebor, an idiot like you may think GWB made us safer, but the record shows GWB has made The USA far weaker. Worse yet, many of us hoped Obama would be far smarter, but sadly, Obama continues with too much GWB policy, and gets piss poor GWB results.