Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

gnadfly · 05-23-2013, 07:58 AM

Seems that the US formally accepted responsibility for the drone strike that killed al-Awlaki and 3 other Americans yesterday. There were several very strange things associated with this. Strange enough that they were mentioned on MSDNC's Rachel Maddow show last night.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/us...ewanted=2&_r=0

First off this announcement came from the Eric Holder's Attorney General's office. Second it included the name of a fourth American killed by a drone strike. This fourth American who was killed was still believed to be alive 'officially' by the FBI.

Third, and probably most puzzling, is that except for the senior al-Awlaki the statement said that they were 'not specifically targeted' by drone strikes. Now the American killed with al-Awlaki was his web designer so I can see the collateral damage argument. al-Awlaki's son who was killed they tracked him by his cell phone so I don't buy the "not specifically" targeted argument. The fourth American was was wanted by the FBI and there was a report that he was killed by a drone strike with no one else of "importance" before this official release.

Maddow had the former Obama pentagon legal adviser on and did her best to spin this in the administration's favor but was befuddled as to why the term 'not specifically targeted' was used when by all apparent indications we sent a in a drone.

There was a lot of hemming and hawing on this subject but IMO no reasonable justification was given for this language by BHO's former official. In fact, Maddow questioned whether the relatives of these terrorists could actually sue the US for wrongful death. The former BHO legal advisor termed in it a "good question."

They didn't ask the question but its very apparent: Those other three American weren't on the President's Official Kill list OR they were on the kill list but not formally approved.

BTW, the meat of the article is on page 2 in the last few paragraphs.

CJ7 · 05-23-2013, 09:11 AM

like the old rightwing sayin went when W was busy sending soldiers to kick down doors and get their asses blown off in the process

Ya gotta break a few eggs to make a cake.

No?

JD Barleycorn · 05-23-2013, 12:38 PM

Is that quote CJ? Source?

i'va biggen · 05-23-2013, 03:49 PM

Talking point..

Old Dingus · 05-23-2013, 04:20 PM

If the so-called cleric was involved in trying to blow up our air transports, then he was a participant in the war and more than fair game. If the others were collateral damage, so be it.

If the US specifically targetted any of the others, then the US should have a valid reason, otherwise it was wrong.

Old Dingus

gnadfly · 05-23-2013, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJ7

like the old rightwing sayin went when W was busy sending soldiers to kick down doors and get their asses blown off in the process

Ya gotta break a few eggs to make a cake.

No?

There's no Bush comparisons there there.

This is about:
-Obama setting up a standard that is supposed
to substitute for the Constitutionally guaranteed right
of due process and that standard not being followed.
-Branches of govt not talking to other branches on very important matters
-More lack of transparency
-Obama is making this more a criminal matter instead of a military matter

Obama's drone speech today is a joke. Its like him saying he's
going to reduce the Osama bin Laden search team budget. And he refuses to
use the phrase "war on terror."

CuteOldGuy · 05-24-2013, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old Dingus

If the so-called cleric was involved in trying to blow up our air transports, then he was a participant in the war and more than fair game. If the others were collateral damage, so be it.

If the US specifically targetted any of the others, then the US should have a valid reason, otherwise it was wrong.

Old Dingus

So, it's not ok to target them, unless we have a valid reason. But if they are randomly killed, it's ok.

This makes sense?

Old Dingus · 05-24-2013, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

So, it's not ok to target them, unless we have a valid reason. But if they are randomly killed, it's ok.

This makes sense?

Not sure what you mean by "randomly killed." If it means collateral damage to an otherwise appropriate action against someone trying to blow up transports and kill Americans, then I have absolutely no problem with it.

Have you ever really considered the purposes of war?

Old Dingus

Old-T · 05-24-2013, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old Dingus

Not sure what you mean by "randomly killed." If it means collateral damage to an otherwise appropriate action against someone trying to blow up transports and kill Americans, then I have absolutely no problem with it.

Have you ever really considered the purposes of war?

Old Dingus

OD, you are spot-on in this case. If any people were in the same area as a legitimate target, ESPECIALLY if they were there of their own volition, then I have no problem with it at all.

And personally I find it almost humerous (almost) that the issue of using a drone has now become a political right/wrong issue. Is it somehow better (or worse) if a piloted vehicle flying 40 miles away launches a missile instead of a person in the US desert launching a missile thousands of miles away? What the hell is the difference?

CJ7 · 05-24-2013, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Is that quote CJ? Source?

same "better there than here" source .. look it up

CuteOldGuy · 05-24-2013, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old Dingus

Not sure what you mean by "randomly killed." If it means collateral damage to an otherwise appropriate action against someone trying to blow up transports and kill Americans, then I have absolutely no problem with it.

Have you ever really considered the purposes of war?

Old Dingus

First of all, we are only at war when Congress declares war. That has not happened since WWII.

Secondly, wars are fought to obtain a clearly defined objective, with a clear definition of victory. We do not have that.

Thirdly, wars are fought to be won. When do we win? How do we know? Who is the enemy?

So what we have is an undefined conflict against an undetermined enemy with no clear objective, and no way of knowing when we win. There is a word for this. It is "stupid". It is not war. There is another word for this. It is "profit". It is not war. There is yet another word for this. It is "control". It is not war.

So we are killing random innocents and children in pursuit of no known goal, an undetermined enemy, and we will never really know when it is over.

And you wonder why the world hates us. They confuse this policy with "America". It is not America. It does not promote freedom. It does not protect our borders. It does nothing but kill innocents and children in the name of profit and control. That is not America at all.

Yes, I've considered the purposes of war. They are not present here.

i'va biggen · 05-25-2013, 07:30 AM

Don't remembering that any of the countries that the terrorists came from declared war on us either.

WTF · 05-25-2013, 09:17 AM

Maybe we could send a bunch of George Zimmerman's over there to patrol the neighborhood. He could kill them and you would have no problem of his version of events , in fact you would start defending Zimmerman killing them by digging up how shady their past was!

Guest123018-4 · 05-25-2013, 09:42 AM

Why is it the left fails to see the disturbing conflict that is this administrations idea of justice.
They will readily kill American citizens without a trial yet will demand that terrorists get a trial in civilian courts. Stupid is as stupid does.

timpage · 05-25-2013, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Why is it the left fails to see the disturbing conflict that is this administrations idea of justice.
They will readily kill American citizens without a trial yet will demand that terrorists get a trial in civilian courts. Stupid is as stupid does.

Amusing. They are "American citizens" when they get droned....but "terrorists" when they're taken alive and tried.