Reply With Quote
The Repugs' objection to drone kiling is that it doesn't ENRICH THE MIC enough.
What they want is MANY $10Bs more handed to MIC by sending US troops back into IRAQ, which, don't forget, they broke in the first place, and couldn't fix.
...will Republicans look at targeted killing?
The Senate Is Done Investigating Torture. Will Drone Killings Be Next?
Obama Told Aides He's 'Really Good At Killing People,' New Book 'Double Down' ClaimsMembers of Congress are divided over whether the president's highly secretive drone-strikes program needs more congressional scrutiny. Some criticize the program's legal rationale, while others have concerns about killing combatants who may have valuable information.
"I was not satisfied with the legal analysis that I read in the classified do ent by the Department of Justice," says Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who is on the Intelligence Committee. "To me, when an American is involved, it raises very different questions then when we are striking a foreign terrorist." Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen who had worked with al-Qaida, was killed in a 2011 drone strike under legal authority the administration derived from the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force.
Details about how drones are used to kill terrorists remain unknown, a fact leaders on Capitol Hill harbor concerns about. Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., who is in line to be the next Senate Foreign Relations chairman, said it's an area ripe for oversight.
"I have always wondered why there isn't more concerns about how that is carried out, but I don't think anyone would want to do that as retribution," for the torture report's release, Corker said. "I think people genuinely want our country to be secure, but at the same time it is pretty amazing that those kinds of decisions are made amongst such a small group of people."
In recent years, Obama and his allies have fiercely defended the drone program, but its efficiency and its reported propensity to incur civilian casualties remain shrouded in secrecy.
The quote comes in the context of both the drone program and the killing of Osama bin Laden by a special forces strike force. The passage also specifically references the death of another al Qaeda leader, Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen on Sept. 30, 2011.
Al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman, who was an American citizen, was killed in a separate drone strike two weeks after his father.Obama didn't need to run through this preamble. Everyone knew the litany of his achievements. Foremost on that day, with the fresh news about al-Awlaki, it seemed the president was pondering the drone program that he had expanded so dramatically and with such lethal results, as well as the death of Bin Laden, which was still resonating worldwide months later. "Turns out I'm really good at killing people," Obama said quietly, "Didn't know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine."
The Repugs' objection to drone kiling is that it doesn't ENRICH THE MIC enough.
What they want is MANY $10Bs more handed to MIC by sending US troops back into IRAQ, which, don't forget, they broke in the first place, and couldn't fix.
They should, but I'm not holding my breath. I fully expect them to try to keep the capability alive and well for a potential GOP president... which probably means some public scolding without actually doing anything about it, even in full control of Congress...
They had control of the House for years. Why didn't they do anything about it?
The intelligence report was 5 years in the making. Yoni making it a partisan issue goes to the heart of what is wrong with US politics. People like Yoni are part of the problem as they prevent solutions.
Obama's killing of citizens absent due process doesn't justify anything. His GOP overlords are unlikely to do anything and he knows it.
5 years in the making by an exclusively Democrat group. 5 years in the making and they did not talk to one single person from the agency they were investigating. It was a partisan report...that's what's wrong with Democrats.
I prevent solutions? Name one solution proposed in the report. Just one.
The Senate Intelligence Committee is not all dems. They talked to plenty of people in the CIA. Try harder.
The Senate report was investigated, written, and published by only Democrats. Keep up with the news, Fuzzy.
Minority Republicans released their own report that the media ignored.
Good topic.
We are currently blowing the out of suspected terrorists by drone strikes every night.
"Suspected terrorists" could be five (blurry night vision blobs that leave their house and all go visit one house at night.
Are they up to something nefarious?
probably.
Or it could be poker night for the guys.
Or it could be a sick dying baby and all the wives in the neighborhood going to pay their respects.
That is how loose the current drone doctrine is.
looks su ious?
what do you think of drone strikes, Yoni?
Of course, the Repugs didn't want to look into whether THEIR BOYS head, dubya, rummy, etc were ASLEEP ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY JOB. The Repug official excuse was the NOBODY could have defended America against 9/11.
Neither did the Democrats. They never even bothered to talk to anyone involved. Took them five years not to do it, too.
Taken in moderation, they can clear a serious terrorist problem right up.
But, care to define what you mean by "drone strike?" Are we certain of the target? Will there be collateral damage? Will it diffuse an immediate threat? Are you certain to kill them or will they lay there "tortured" and suffering for hours or days?
All legitimate questions. I know you guys only deal in binaries - torture or not torture - things like that but, there happens to be nuances that should be considered before making a judgment.
Boutons, I think it is fair to say that until the Muslim extremists showed up in the last few years no one really could wrap their head around suicide terrorists. Airplanes had been hijacked by political extremists before but it was always about hostage negotiations and the extremists had escape plans and weren't ready and willing to die for their cause like this latest wave of terrorism. It is incredibly hard for anyone to game plan against someone not only willing but gladly accepting that they will die a gruesome death to further their "cause".
"no one really could wrap their head around suicide terrorists"
Jan-Sep 2001 , the Repug EXEC DIDN'T EVEN TRY.
NO NSA meetings, no speeches about caution, cir spection, etc, etc.
The 9/11 Comm report spells out CLEARLY what the WH, self-satisfied, self-enriching, and relaxing after ramming thru their big tax cut (for themselves) and OBSESSED with invading Iraq for oil, absolutely blew it. And like Wall st stealing $Ts from the USA, the Repugs got away with it.
dubya's advince? "just go shopping"
and then Repugs EXPLOITED 9/11, LIED TO a terrified USA to go after Iraq's oil.
Boutons, are you truly willing to give up all the civil liberties necessary to get close to a 100% deterrence to suicide terrorism?
Quit pointing fingers and just give a yes / no answer.
, you don't even support everyone in the US being required to have an ID card.
WTC had already been BOMBED in 1993 by Muslim terrorists.
AND THEY WEREN'T SUICIDE BOMBERS, EITHER, WERE THEY YOU STUPID WAD.
I wouldn't hold my breath. The government likes to kill people. It's the only thing it's good at.
C'mon . It's a simple yes / no question.
Boutons posting everywhere but here and running away like the little he is.
This is a very old problem painted in a new light by technology:
The rights of the individual v. the good of the whole
civil liberties are a myth, but if I had a choice, I wouldn't give them up to stop terrorism.
As hero Snowden has exposed, and as the militarized police state has enforced, American civil liberties are a ing myth
It's all relative, .
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
