Skip to main content

View Diary: Lawrence O'Donnell's beautiful smackdown of idiot Rand Paul's paranoid and hate-filled filibuster (70 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Interesting point. But Presidents have always (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    been given great decision making latitude in the manner of conducting the defense of the nation. For example, John Kennedy by himself could have started a nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

    And Bush dropped tons of bombs all over Iraq. Do you think this power by the President should be reserved for legislators?

    By the way, I agree with you that President Obama would not use drones to kill Americans on American soil, and certainly not while having lunch in a cafe.

    •  Well (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NedSparks, poligirl, stevemb

      Couple of thoughts. One, I didn't agree with the Iraq war either, but it did have a Congressional vote that approved it, which in theory ought to provide some oversight regarding what the American people wanted. A unitary executive using drones to go around killing people without really having any public discussion of what is happening is a different situation.

      Two, I do think there is a distinction between using them in the U.S. and using them overseas, in that it is easier for us to capture someone and bring them to trial here in the U.S. Using our currently existing legal system is very feasible if someone is in the US. There is really no reason not to use our existing legal processes in that situation (I suppose one could argue except perhaps in a very extreme 9/11 type circumstance such as a plane currently in the air and about to hit a target).

      Overall I do tend to feel that the technology to some degree is getting in the way of the discussion, in that I don't really think it's any better for us to send an army over and kill people than it is for us to use a machine to do it. But at least if things are out in the open we can talk about them.

      Ultimately I just think it's a bad idea. In addition to the morality, the net results of these kinds of actions just have so rarely ended up being a positive for the U.S. in the long run.

      •  overall I agree with the points you've made, I (1+ / 0-)

        would make one distinction, however, and that is even though Congress did authorize force in Iraq, they did not micro manage how President Bush conducted that war, and he dropped many thousands of bombs killing many Iraqi citizens.

        Now, in terms of Afghanistan, Congress did authorize the President to use force against those who "planned, authorized, committed, or aided" the terrorist attack on Sept 11, 2001.

        This was intended to destroy al-Qaida and deprive it of its sanctuaries in Afghanistan. And just like the Iraq authorization of force, there was no stipulation how such force should be used. Still, whereas Bush dropped hundreds of thousands of bombs over Iraq, President Obama employs drones in Afghanistan....

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site