Reason: President Obama Briefly Worried That His Unaccountable, Murderous Power Might Fall Into Republican Hands

[JMS]

I share SHF's concerns over the use of drones. I understand, as a practical matter, why a President in 2012 goes after terrorists this way, but there are no logical limits to the power once it is wielded. I voted for Obama in spite of the drone policy, not because of it. I suspect many people felt the same way.

Was the "radical" cleric Anwar al-Awlaki whom we killed along with his 16 yo son a terrorist? He gave anti American speeches, but I don't believe he has ever been associated with planning or implementing an attack on US interests.

We are doing the same thing Israel does... We target folks we don't like and call them terrorists; we then label everyone who dies proximal to the target a terrorist also. Trusting in the obliviousness of the US people to cloak the offensiveness of the policy.

For those outraged Obama's put the clear guidelines on hold after his election victory.. Get over it. President Obama is said to personally approve every target of these assassinations; so what exactly does codifying the implementation guidelines do? Nothing.
The outrage is the technology, and the use of that technology without independent collaboration without a declaration of war.

[QUOTE=Predicto;9285701
The article linked in the OP lacks force for me because it assumes that Obama's opponent would have chosen not to use the drones, and thus a vote for Obama would have been a vote against drones and for the curbing of presidential power. I have no reason to believe that is true. If anything, I am fairly certain of the opposite. Unless of course the vote was for Ron Paul, and that was an option I could not countenance for myriad other reasons.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. I think Obama is a serious and deep thinker on the subject of abuse of power. I feel he's fell off a cliff with his use of drone strikes, justifying his decisions along the lines of keeping American's safe. I think it's an argument which can basically be used to sweep away all checks on power which have been carefully inserted into our government by the framers of the constitution. It's the same trap Lincoln and Roosevelt fell into; only their abuses were temporary and defensive in nature rather than reaching out and murdering folks ( US citizens and foreign nationals) abroad.

[gbear]

Why does the drone have to be in your hypothetical.

Are you ok with a non-drone killing in your hypo, but not a drone killing? That's what I don't get.

On the issue of does the technology matter, I think it does on the perception front. Have you seen one article in a U.S. news source refer to our invasion of Pakistan? Would we see it if every one of our drone strikes involved putting boots on the ground? An invasion would get a far different reaction from Congress.

I think one of my concerns comes from the use of people with eyes on the ground at least allows for an option of surrender. How does one surrender to a drone? How does one declare oneself peaceful? It feels like the use of drones is intensely impersonal which seems a hell of a way to kill (I know a bomber is the same). The use of the drones just seems a way of short circuiting all of the protections against absolute power to kill any one at any time any where. Where are the checks and balances? What is enough?

[Bang]

As a means of War? We're at war with 20? known countries?

We have been since we decided that we were at war on Terror, and declared that anyone who wasn't with us was against us.
This has been understood since the decisions to go to war were made in the wake of 9/11.
the enemy doesn't give a crap about any sorts of rules of engagement or national boundaries. In fact they ignore such things because it gives them an advantage.
So, if we are going to fight this war, we better have been prepared to be ready to fight this KIND of war.


frankly, if McCain had won, we'd be in the same boat, and the complaining would be reversed.
We love to blame ourselves, but we never seem to blame the enemy.

Oh right! Because the enemy is the __ democrats / __ republicans (choose one.)

Pandoras box is open. There is no closing it.
now who opened it, and why?
Did we open it because we felt like flying some model airplanes round and killing people with them?
or did we open it because some seriously evil people forced us to fly our model airplanes around to hunt them?

~Bang

[Tulane Skins Fan]

On the issue of does the technology matter, I think it does on the perception front. Have you seen one article in a U.S. news source refer to our invasion of Pakistan? Would we see it if every one of our drone strikes involved putting boots on the ground? An invasion would get a far different reaction from Congress.

I think one of my concerns comes from the use of people with eyes on the ground at least allows for an option of surrender. How does one surrender to a drone? How does one declare oneself peaceful? It feels like the use of drones is intensely impersonal which seems a hell of a way to kill (I know a bomber is the same). The use of the drones just seems a way of short circuiting all of the protections against absolute power to kill any one at any time any where. Where are the checks and balances? What is enough?

In regards to the invasion of Pakistan, I assume you are referring to the Osama bin Laden raid. I think if we used drones to kill Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, the news would have been just as positive. I think bin Laden is a different animal than what we're talking about.

Boots on the ground v. drones is sort of an interesting issue, and I see your point. But are drones less personal than any other air craft? How does someone surrender to an F-14 either?

[Vilandil Tasardur]

Humor me for a moment, and entertain a hypothetical.

A horrible, proven, no doubt about it terrorist is found. He is residing in a flat in a London suburb. We have solid, definitive proof that, from this flat in which he is sitting at the moment, he is planning a massive terrorist attack on the Western world. This attack includes damage done to the United States, England, and other number of key sites in the Western world. In short, there is not a smidge of doubt that he is a terrorist and a serious threat to both us and our allies. Are you comfortable with the President of the United States (regardless of which president or political party) ordering a drone strike to fly over and destroy the building in which he is residing, killing him, his family, and a few civilian neighbors. Are you comfortable with the president ordering this strike on his own, without collaboration with the English (in whose country the terrorist is currently residing)?

Personally, I think in this situation, we need to work with the English to take the guy out. I'm less concerned with the drone vs boots on the ground debate of it as I am with the president making the decision independent of the nation in which it will occur. Sure, we can all say "it's just Afghanistan" or "Why do we need to talk to Pakistan first?" but I'm just not sure you can waltz into another country and start killing terrorists without some sort of a cooperative effort.

[Bang]

Humor me for a moment, and entertain a hypothetical.

A horrible, proven, no doubt about it terrorist is found. He is residing in a flat in a London suburb. We have solid, definitive proof that, from this flat in which he is sitting at the moment, he is planning a massive terrorist attack on the Western world. This attack includes damage done to the United States, England, and other number of key sites in the Western world. In short, there is not a smidge of doubt that he is a terrorist and a serious threat to both us and our allies. Are you comfortable with the President of the United States (regardless of which president or political party) ordering a drone strike to fly over and destroy the building in which he is residing, killing him, his family, and a few civilian neighbors. Are you comfortable with the president ordering this strike on his own, without collaboration with the English (in whose country the terrorist is currently residing)?

Personally, I think in this situation, we need to work with the English to take the guy out. I'm less concerned with the drone vs boots on the ground debate of it as I am with the president making the decision independent of the nation in which it will occur. Sure, we can all say "it's just Afghanistan" or "Why do we need to talk to Pakistan first?" but I'm just not sure you can waltz into another country and start killing terrorists without some sort of a cooperative effort.

Well, you'd also have to account for the English leaders possibly being in cahoots with the terrorists as you probably do when dealing with some of these middle eastern countries., You'd have to factor in that some of these other nations often are run by dictators or other non-democratic leadership who may or may not be cooperating with the enemy living within their borders.
I think we'd obviously always consult with known allies with whom we have such a high standing a trusting relationship.

I don't think Yemen or Qatar or other places fit that bill.

~Bang

[Madison Redskin]

Humor me for a moment, and entertain a hypothetical.

A horrible, proven, no doubt about it terrorist is found. He is residing in a flat in a London suburb. We have solid, definitive proof that, from this flat in which he is sitting at the moment, he is planning a massive terrorist attack on the Western world. This attack includes damage done to the United States, England, and other number of key sites in the Western world. In short, there is not a smidge of doubt that he is a terrorist and a serious threat to both us and our allies. Are you comfortable with the President of the United States (regardless of which president or political party) ordering a drone strike to fly over and destroy the building in which he is residing, killing him, his family, and a few civilian neighbors. Are you comfortable with the president ordering this strike on his own, without collaboration with the English (in whose country the terrorist is currently residing)?

Personally, I think in this situation, we need to work with the English to take the guy out. I'm less concerned with the drone vs boots on the ground debate of it as I am with the president making the decision independent of the nation in which it will occur. Sure, we can all say "it's just Afghanistan" or "Why do we need to talk to Pakistan first?" but I'm just not sure you can waltz into another country and start killing terrorists without some sort of a cooperative effort.

I'd work with the English because they don't have a material and long history of working with Islamist nutters. The Pakis on the other hand...

[gbear]

Tulane,
I actually did not mean the Osama raid.

I meant the numerous drone strikes we have carried out in Pakistan going after numerous targets some of which fit our profile of terrorists some doing activities fitting our profile of terrorist activity. I've never seen any of them referred to as invasions. For the length of time we have been conducing them, wouldn't Congress have to approve if this was a boots on the ground situation? Instead, these are a series of incursions by drones not people therefor not an invasion in our press. I'm not sure the locals feel the same.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Tulane,
I actually did not mean the Osama raid.

I meant the numerous drone strikes we have carried out in Pakistan going after numerous targets some of which fit our profile of terrorists some doing activities fitting our profile of terrorist activity. I've never seen any of them referred to as invasions. For the length of time we have been conducing them, wouldn't Congress have to approve if this was a boots on the ground situation? Instead, these are a series of incursions by drones not people therefor not an invasion in our press. I'm not sure the locals feel the same.

Ah... In answer to your last question, I don't believe it makes any difference. Whether its boots on the grounds or drones, President has commander in chief powers. Furthermore, its part of what I believe is a declared war in Afghanistan.

I totally understand the concern about checks and balances on the President during times of war. I'm not sure our Constitution actually institutes a whole lot of checks and balances, truthfully, but I can't say that definitively either. However, I see no difference in drone v. non-drone techniques in regards to constitutionality. I don't understand why drones usage prompts such heated debate on this topic though.

[SnyderShrugged]

Ah... In answer to your last question, I don't believe it makes any difference. Whether its boots on the grounds or drones, President has commander in chief powers. Furthermore, its part of what I believe is a declared war in Afghanistan.

I totally understand the concern about checks and balances on the President during times of war. I'm not sure our Constitution actually institutes a whole lot of checks and balances, truthfully, but I can't say that definitively either. However, I see no difference in drone v. non-drone techniques in regards to constitutionality. I don't understand why drones usage prompts such heated debate on this topic though.

There is a declared war in Afghanistan?

[The Evil Genius]

In modern times, should our direct military actions be synonymous with "war" declarations?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

There is a declared war in Afghanistan?

I thought there was... no?

I am pretty sure we did declare war after 9/11. I don't know the terms of it, etc.

Just google searched and I think Operation Enduring Freedom was a declaration of war by Congress in Afghanistan against Al-Qaeda... no?

[SnyderShrugged]

I thought there was... no?

I am pretty sure we did declare war after 9/11. I don't know the terms of it, etc.

Nope, havent had a formal declaration of war since I think WW2. Its all been congressional end arounds since then. That's probably why we see a war that has lasted more than a decade and we will see more than 10k troops in Afghanistan well after the so -called 2014 leave date we are promised.

---------- Post added November-26th-2012 at 03:36 PM ----------

In modern times, should our direct military actions be synonymous with "war" declarations?

No, war should be declared by congress as is suppossed to occur. All of the successful ones were done that way.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Nope, havent had a formal declaration of war since I think WW2. Its all been congressional end arounds since then. That's probably why we see a war that has lasted more than a decade and we will see more than 10k troops in Afghanistan well after the so -called 2014 leave date we are promised.[COLOR="Gold"]

Wikipedia, but:

President George W. Bush was authorized by the U.S. Congress on 14 September 2001, by legislation titled Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists which was passed and signed on 18 September 2001, by both President Bush and Congress. This legislation authorized the use of U.S. Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on 11 September 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the 11 September attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The Bush administration, for its part, did not seek a declaration of war by the U.S. Senate, and labeled Taliban troops as supporters of terrorists rather than soldiers, denying them the protections of the Geneva Convention and due process of law. This position was successfully challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court[71] and questioned even by military lawyers responsible for prosecuting affected prisoners.[72] On 20 December 2001, more than two months after the U.S.-led attack began, the UNSC authorized the creation of an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to take all measures necessary to fulfill its mandate of assisting the Afghan Interim Authority in maintaining security.[73] Command of the ISAF passed to NATO on 11 August 2003.[74]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_...2%80%93present)

I admit I have to freshen up to see if both branches of congress have to declare war or just the House.

[SnyderShrugged]

Wikipedia, but:

President George W. Bush was authorized by the U.S. Congress on 14 September 2001, by legislation titled Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists which was passed and signed on 18 September 2001, by both President Bush and Congress. This legislation authorized the use of U.S. Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on 11 September 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the 11 September attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The Bush administration, for its part, did not seek a declaration of war by the U.S. Senate, and labeled Taliban troops as supporters of terrorists rather than soldiers, denying them the protections of the Geneva Convention and due process of law. This position was successfully challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court[71] and questioned even by military lawyers responsible for prosecuting affected prisoners.[72] On 20 December 2001, more than two months after the U.S.-led attack began, the UNSC authorized the creation of an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to take all measures necessary to fulfill its mandate of assisting the Afghan Interim Authority in maintaining security.[73] Command of the ISAF passed to NATO on 11 August 2003.[74]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_...2%80%93present)

I admit I have to freshen up to see if both branches of congress have to declare war or just the House.

That isnt a war declaration, that is an "authorization to use military force" two completely different things.

Only congress can declare war, never a President alone.