Skip to main content

View Diary: Dabbling in terror and targeting Americans a bad career move under this President... (99 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  We elect the President to make those tough calls.. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zenox, doc2, NedSparks, SilentBrook

    As commander-in-chief, he's always had the final word, from the Cuban Missile Crisis through Vietnam through Grenada through Desert Storm through Afghanistan through Iraq.
    When have military decisions ever required a public mandate?

    The people had their say last November. Majority rules and the winner runs the operation for four years...

    •  Not Domestically he doesn't! That's the court's (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ffour, 84thProblem, marina

      job.

      We didn't elect a quadrennial dictator. We elected a president.

      I really need to step away from the computer...

      Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

      by k9disc on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 03:05:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Come back when you start making sense... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bepanda, zenox, doc2, SilentBrook

        I'm willing to bet you reserve the right to shoot someone you catch lurking on your property at 3 in the morning, even if they are later discovered to be unarmed.
        Does your due process still apply to that American citizen?

        The administration has asserted the right to kill those involved in terror operations against American citizens before they act. Nobody else, just those involved in terror operations. I personally applaud that stance and feel safer because of it, since I'm NOT involved in terror operations and have nothing to fear...

        •  How (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          marina, k9disc, Roadbed Guy
          The administration has asserted the right to kill those involved in terror operations against American citizens before they act. Nobody else, just those involved in terror operations.
          Do you have to prove in a court of law that someone was actually involved? Or should we take the Administration's word?
          I personally applaud that stance and feel safer because of it, since I'm NOT involved in terror operations and have nothing to fear...
          Yes, similar to 'You need privacy only if you have something to hide'.
          •  I feel pretty comfortable in the knowledge... (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            doc2, Moravan, elmo, SilentBrook

            ...my government isn't going to try to kill me under the stated drone policy. I've seen or heard nothing--not one word--from this administration that threatens anyone not involved in terror operations.

            You can take hypotheticals to any extreme you like (I've never actually heard Rand Paul say he doesn't engage in sex with animals, so can I reasonably assume it's possible he does?), but please point any the stated threat from this administration to anyone not engaged in terror operations...

            •  Yeah, I suspect that YOU *are* confortable (0+ / 0-)

              in that knowledge, what with your internet contributions to the cause and all.

              So why would they target one of their lackeys?  I suspect they won't.

              Not intentionally at least.

              •  Oh, please (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                SilentBrook

                If they haven't targeted the Koch brothers or Roger Ailes already, I think you're pretty safe.

                •  Why would they target their own? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  k9disc, ffour

                  That's my point - if you're in the in group, you're safe (intelligence failures notwithstanding).

                  If you're not, be wary!

                  •  You're sincerely arguing (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    SilentBrook

                    that Roger Ailes and the Koch brothers are in alliance with Obama, eh?

                    Well, then, how about sending a drone in to target Jane Hamsher, Cornell West or Adam Green? If he's done it, I missed it.

                    •  Functionally they are peas in a pod (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      k9disc

                      kinda like fights over the Keystone pipeline - the tarsands oil is getting out one way or another - the only questions is whether the pipeline or railroad 1%ers stand to profit.

                      In the case of the people you mentioned, they are all heavily invested in the MIC, which Obama has shown to be as well.  

                      Bottom line - they're all on the same side in the bigger scheme of things.

                      •  Really?!?!? (0+ / 0-)
                        In the case of the people you mentioned, they are all heavily invested in the MIC
                        So, Jane Hamsher, Cornell West & Adam Green are all heavily invested in the Military Industrial Complex? Really?!?

                        No wonder we ran Hamsher's ass off this site.

                        PrezObama's only mistake in the sequester is that he assumed that the Republicans would be more loyal to their oath of office to serve the people than their oath to Norquist to never close tax loopholes.

                        by SilentBrook on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 09:14:54 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I was talking about Obama, Koch Brothers, (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          k9disc

                          and Roger Ailes.

                          Seriously, if an intelligent alien, maybe that one from American Dad, came to earth and apprised the situation - I suspect that he or she would quickly come to the conclusion that all 4 of them are working towards the same goal.  

                          All evidence DOES point that way . .. . right?

                          •  Irony alert! (0+ / 0-)

                            Someone who suggested that Obama might target domestic critics for drone attack is now talking about drawing a conclusion from evidence.

                            Oy!

                          •  Well, if I am doing my small part to keep (0+ / 0-)

                            irony alive, I am heartened by that.

                            OTOH, either in this diary or another one extant today, there has been discussion of how drones are just a tool, albeit one that makes the job of the Powers That Be just a tad easier . ..  .. (you know, by not having their peons killed, etc etc).

                            Nothing more or less really.

                            In that case, based on precedent of governments in the USA bombing their citizens, why * wouldn't * drones be used for this purpose in the future?  I suspect it is almost inevitable that they will be.

          •  "Before they act" = thought crime nt (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            k9disc
          •  You don't use the courts for (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SilentBrook

            crimes in progress or when an arrest would alert conspirators and thus set in motion a violent crime. It is obvious that there could be situations in which action is required by the military as opposed to by lawyers. Of course, it would be rare (as Holder said).

        •  If I shot someone outside of my property at 3 AM (5+ / 0-)

          I would most likely find myself in court to determine if it was justified.

          And the government hasn't just assumed the right to execute terrorists, they have assumed the right to potentially execute associates of terrorists.

          And what constitutes "Terror" anyway? Who decides that? Is it like porn,"I know it when I see it?" What do I need to do to ensure that I'm not executed?

          Last I checked OWS and Quakers were under suspicion of being terrorists? You think we should be bombing tent cities and peacenik farms and shit?

          Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

          by k9disc on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 03:34:17 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  What about the victims due process? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            doc2, SilentBrook

            Is he not entitled to due process before you shoot him? Maybe he was just drunk, or lost, when he wandered onto your property at 3 in the morning. Is it your right to make that call or the authorities?

            Quakers as terrorists in 2013? Talk about a straw man...

            •  One party's terrorist is another party's freedom (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Kingsmeg, marina

              fighter:
              http://abcnews.go.com/...

              A terrorist watch list compiled by the FBI has apparently swelled to include more than half a million names. Privacy and civil liberties advocates say the list is growing uncontrollably, threatening its usefulness in the war on terror. The bureau says the number of names on its terrorist watch list is classified.
              http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/...
              This week, the Federal Bureau of Investigation announced that it had added a 31-year-old American animal rights activist named Daniel Andreas San Diego to its list of “Most Wanted Terrorists.” Describing Mr. San Diego as a “domestic terrorist,” the F.B.I. warned that he “should be considered armed and dangerous.” According to the bureau, Mr. San Diego is wanted for the role he may have played in the bombings of two San Francisco-area office buildings.
              (emphasis mine)

              And just to make you a bit uncomfortable:
              http://allpatriotsmedia.com/...

              In addition to Code Pink, the bill could also designate the Progressive Democrats of America as a terrorist organization, as they have openly supported the Hamas flotilla. Members of the PDA include:

              Rep. John Conyers (D-GA)
              Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)
              Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA)
              Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)
              Thom Hartmann (radio and television host)
              Tom Hayden (who advocates the “peaceful” disappearance of the white race)
              Bill Fletcher (member of the Democratic Socialists of America)

              Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy about the prospects of Rand Paul 2016, doesn't it.

              Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

              by k9disc on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 03:55:22 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Big difference between being on a watch list... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                k9disc, doc2, SilentBrook

                ...and being the target of a Hellfire missile. You are actually making my point for me--all those names cited are still alive, aren't they? No Hellfire missile assassinations among them, is there?

                The administration standard to trigger a drone attack against an American citizen on American soil is much, much higher than anything you cited above. In fact, nobody has met that standard yet.

                Like I said, one can imagine all sorts of threats with paranoid hypotheticals....

              •  "Hamas flotilla"? (0+ / 0-)

                So that's what the game was about. Get a Turkish boat with giant Turkish flags join an international relief effort to bring goods to the Palestinians. Fill up the boat with fanatic looking people although most Turks are not fanatics. Get IDF to attack the Turkish boat commando style with a "kill-list" and then when the American liberals joined by the international community cry foul, designate them as "terrorists supporting the 'Hamas' boat."

                Wow! Amazing...I can't believe the level of monstrosity built in these plots.

                Evil does exist.

                "Corruptio Optimi Pessima" (Corruption of the best is the worst)

                by zenox on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 05:10:16 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  If the guy has been indicted for (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                SilentBrook

                terrorism and is on the lam from the FBI, then you are right that he has only been accused and thus may be not guilty. But if he is unwilling to turn himself in to stand trial, we are supposed to perpetually give him the innocent-til-proven-guilty status? IMO, if he knows he is wanted for terrorism, but it is a case of mistaken identity, he must turn himself in. If he doesn't, the police are (of course) going to consider him an ongoing threat. You are not being logical.

            •  I don't think "due process" means what you think (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              marina

              it means.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/...

              'Due process' is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects the individual person from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due-process violation, which offends against the rule of law.
              What is your game here? You can't be that ignorant - conflating the actions of an individual citizen and the State...

              Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

              by k9disc on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 04:00:39 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Simply pointing out how your outrage... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                SilentBrook

                ...at the government ignoring due process to protect American citizens fades away when you yourself assert your right to ignore due process to protect yourself. It's the inconsistency that weakens your argument.

                What game are YOU playing? If you aren't involved in terror operations, you have nothing to fear. This crap about the President sitting around the WH, passing the time by picking out US citizens to bomb at random at the corner diner, sounds like something...well, it sure sounds like something Rand Paul or Sarah Palin would say!

                Gip a grip, buddy--we're going to be all right...

                •  Citizens don't get to practice due process. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  marina

                  The courts and the states do.

                  Like I said, that phrase doesn't mean what you think it means.

                  You are mistaking due process for right or wrong, and that's kind of my beef with your logic. You just don't get it.  

                  Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

                  by k9disc on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 04:35:15 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You are claiming a right to shoot that intruder... (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    doc2, SilentBrook

                    ...on your property if I understand you correctly. But I don't see how that is consistent with your stated beliefs that all American citizens deserve due process through the courts. Doesn't he get a day in court before you execute him?

                    What right are you claiming to shoot him down in cold blood without a trial? Please don't say self-defense.

                    I'll agree individuals have rights not necessarily given the state, but the government does have full responsibility to raise armies and conduct warfare for the common defense. And the constitution specifically makes the President the commander in chief of those armies, which gives him latitude to conduct military operations within the constitution.

                    The administration is asserting that the drone policy falls within it's constitutional authority. I suspect the Supreme Court will get the final say here and I believe they'll uphold the President 9-0 when that day comes...  

                    •  No, I am saying that me shooting a person on my (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      marina

                      property is not robbing him or her of his or her right to due process.

                      It may be depriving them of their life and liberty, but it has no bearing on due process whatsoever.

                      Due Process is a responsibility of the State. It's the 5th amendment. Individuals are not responsible for the bill of rights.

                      I don't have to let you talk. I don't have to let you own a gun. I don't have to protect your privacy.

                      Due process is for an accused, not a victim.

                      And you are the one that said I was shooting a guy outside my property, I was just rolling with it.

                      There is also a huge difference between me defending myself and shooting a guy loitering on my property.

                      That's kind of the point. The State can not shoot a loiterer (or a suspected terrorist) and claim that they were halting a crime that was going to be committed.

                      Of course the State has assumed that right and here you are defending it, but that doesn't mean it's proper, moral or constitutional. Remember that Plessy v Furgeson was 'constitutional' for 60 years, until it wasn't.

                      It's just a bit more complex than killing bad guys...

                      Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

                      by k9disc on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 05:09:51 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Would you please answer the question. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        SilentBrook

                        What about people who choose not to avail themselves of their right to due process? They refuse to face trial, go underground, and (we suspect) continue to plan and conduct crimes. What are we supposed to do then?

                        •  Assuming they have already committed crimes, (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          k9disc

                          You capture them and bring them to trial, respecting due process and all that.*

                          You know, like we were taught in grade school -- equal justice for all, innocent until proven guilty, all that stuff. That's what makes used to make us such a great country.

                          * If they can't be captured, then at least we could arm the damn drones with sleeping gas or something non-lethal. Yeah, I know it's easier to just kill whoever's there and of course It Can't Happen Here.

                        •  Not that you really deserve an answer, as you (0+ / 0-)

                          and Bluestrike have been entirely obtuse as to my point and continue to try to beat your ideas into me - it's not necessary. I understand your point. I disagree with it, in it's entirety.

                          I would use like force on someone who was actively doing me harm.

                          I would not use force on someone who had done me harm or who might do me harm, or whom I believe would do me harm. If I did, I would not expect a get out of jail free card based on a self defense defense. If I were to act violently, I would expect that there would be repercussions and would budget them into my decision to act. It would be a big decision - one not taken lightly because of those repercussions.

                          That's what should happen in the "24", ticking time bomb scenario you guys keep talking about.

                          If Obama or President Bush were to shoot a hellfire missile at a bad guy in the US, to thwart a heinous crime, he should expect that there will be fallout. That he should have to fess up and come clean and plead his case to the People and to the judicial system, is important to ensuring that it doesn't happen frivolously.

                          As is, or as I understand the NDAA and current 'war footing' Unitary Executive power - no court sanction, no access to details due to National Security and Executive Privilege - it will be used not only to protect Americans from harm in a terrorist attack, but it will also be used to protect the Establishment.

                          Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

                          by k9disc on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 09:36:04 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Well, I guess it is a good thing you (0+ / 0-)

                            are not responsible for our safety. A terrorist who has killed in the past and may be planning to kill again is not enough of a target for you? He must be actively killing at the very moment he is targeted? Again, thank you for not being my president. And my children thank you as well.

                    •  In any civilized country, (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      marina, k9disc

                      including my own (Canada), shooting down a person simply for being on your property is called 'murder'.  Period.  If that person is breaking down the door of your house, after you have ordered them to leave and called the cops, you might enter 'self-defense' territory but you will still have a lot of explaining to do if you actually shoot them before they have broken down the door and pointed a weapon at you.

                      Coincidentally, most civilized people think the current US administration's drone strikes are murder, plain and simple. Someone piloting a remote killing machine looks at some unknown house from thousands of feet in the air, and because they see 3 unknown people enter the house they decide there's a possibility they're 'terrorists' so they launch a Hellfire missile at the house, without knowing or caring who's inside or why?  Yes, that's murder.  When this is done systematically to terrorize an entire population (Afghanistan, 'Waziristan'...), it is more than 'murder', it's 'terrorism'.

                      You really think the US gov't should have the power to begin this at home?  Not the right, there is no 'right' to do this even in Afghanistan where there is arguably a war, there is merely the power to do it and have no one be able to stop it or prosecute it as a crime.

                      190 milliseconds....

                      by Kingsmeg on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 06:19:45 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Basically they are saying that (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  SilentBrook

                  everyone is entitled to due process, even if they are hiding out from due process. We must patiently wait until we have an opportunity to safely arrest the person. That is our only avenue. Aren't progressives supposed to care for the weakest and most vulnerable over the interests of the violent bully?

              •  That is silly. Due process is (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                SilentBrook

                available to all. But we are talking about people who, by evading detection when they know that they are wanted, are actively running from the law. They are deciding NOT to take advantage of their right to due process. So you say that we should hold off on punishing them since we can't prove them guilty since they won't allow us to. That is a Catch-22 if there ever was one. Why though you'd side with the wanted terrorist on the run is surprising though since it is you (and I) that he wants to kill. I say that if a person is wanted or indicted for violent crimes, and some time passes and they do not turn themselves in, that their due process rights are put on hold in favor of protecting society. To me, that is a commonsense progressive position to take.

          •  Unless you're in Florida (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            k9disc

            then it's a whole different can of worms.

          •  Yes, that has happened (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            marina

            The court said that the administration's use of drones to target American civilians abroad was not justiciable.

            http://www.csmonitor.com/...

      •  Ever heard of "self-defense"? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SilentBrook

        can't be used against American citizens on US soil? Courts will disagree with you. The president is not only responsible for the protection of the American citizens on foreign soil against foreign enemies but also on U S soil against domestic dangers.

        Nobody wants a dictatorship but to say that US citizens can not be defended on U S soil if the danger is domestic, one mustbe living in a cartoon universe of simple dimensions.

        "Corruptio Optimi Pessima" (Corruption of the best is the worst)

        by zenox on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 04:59:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  "I promise you, your honor, he was going to go out (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          marina

          to his car and get his gun. So I shot him."

          "I'm sorry, I will not show my evidence of that because it is a trade secret."

          The President is also responsible for upholding the rights of all citizens, including criminals.

          Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

          by k9disc on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 05:15:09 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  What if the threat comes from (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Moravan, Cedwyn, SilentBrook

        within our borders? The world is changing, rapidly. 18th Century rules are not sacrosanct; we should adapt them where necessary. In a representative democracy, you elect an executive to make the tough decisions. If you don't like the decisions he made, you elect someone else the next time. That is how the system has always worked; today's presidents simply have more power.

        And by the way, our first president led troops, personally, on horseback, to mount a fight against our own citizens at the Whiskey Rebellion. A reminder that we're not really talking about something different here (albeit with more powerful technology).

        •  Then you do police work, arrest them and give them (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          marina

          a trial. Full stop.

          Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

          by k9disc on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 05:27:09 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Absolutely. You try that. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SilentBrook

            No one is arguing against you on that. But say the dude keeps killing (we suspect) and we can't catch him alive and he refuses to turn himself in? Are you saying that we should just keep doing what we're doing, and hope that someday he makes a mistake so we can catch him peacefully, or hope for him someday to turn himself in? Seriously, if it were your job as president to protect us from this suspected murderer, would you just opt to wait indefinitely out of respect for "due process"?

          •  Wow, just arrest every terrorist out there... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SilentBrook

            {Palm-slap to my head}
            Billy Rosewood here has it all figured out. Just go out and arrest all the domestic terrorists before they act. Why didn't we think of that?

            Oklahoma City wasn't a terror attack, it was just a law enforcement failure. And all this time I thought McVeigh and Nichol's were to blame.

            Somebody throw Democracy a life preserver....

             

        •  Today's Presidents simply have more tools... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          doc2, SilentBrook

          ...at their disposal.

    •  Yes. this is why we spend more dough on the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marina

      military than the next 8 or 10 nations combined and no president ever cut the military in any significant way.  By the way wasn't congress supposed to authorize war under the Constitution, what a joke, we have a new dictator every 4 years and they can go to war come hell or high water, the people must support this stuff or be called unpatriotic.  At least crazy Rand Paul is severely questioning this kind of war mentality which leads to stuff like Iraq.  

      •  Rand Paul was pulling a political stunt... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        zenox, Moravan, SilentBrook, WakeUpNeo

        One five-minute personal phone call to Holder and he would have received his answer. They do have phones in DC.

        But then he wouldn't have been an overnight right wing hero, would he? Let's just be clear about what Wednesday was all about...

        •  Phone call would've been superfluous (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SilentBrook

          Did Holder not assert respect for due process in his initial response to crackpot Paul and his hypothetical paranoia?

          "It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the president to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States."

          Paul had his answer all along. I'm tired of people fawning over his political theatre.
      •  We do indeed spend WAY too much (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SilentBrook

        on the military. Which is just another reason to support drone warfare. A president with direct control over unmanned drones is a very cheap alternative to our existing military footprint. We should applaud strategies that result in a much smaller (though still lethal) military.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site