Skip to main content

View Diary: Droning Americans on US Soil: Why Holder's "No" is Not Reassuring (156 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Snipers are taking out terror suspects on American (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    semiot, PhilJD, gooderservice, aliasalias

    soil?  Where has that happened?  Is Holder asserting the right to use snipers against them?  Actually, I might prefer it, as snipers likely cause less collateral damage than drone strikes.

    I have a problem w/ my govt summarily executing (according to drone supporter Lindsey Graham) 4,700 people, esp. when no one will ever know how many of them were women, children, and other civilians.  I have an even bigger problem w/ the executive claiming an untrammelled power to kill people and the executive refusing to disclose details of its decision-making process.

    I have this quaint idea that separation of powers and the Bill of Rights were burned in the wreckage of the twin towers on 9/11.  Obviously, many others feel otherwise or simply don't care.

    Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

    by RFK Lives on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 07:59:21 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  In exactly the same place (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Inland, blueyedace2, kefauver
      Snipers are taking out terror suspects on American soil?  Where has that happened?
      In exactly the same place that the President has ordered a targeted hellfire missile strike delivered via an unmanned drone on American Soil.

      It apparently happens NON-STOP in the febrile imaginations of many a blogger and media personality.

      Fine... don't picture them as drones.  Imagine we flew 4700 manned flights in our billion dollar airplanes like we've done in EVERY OTHER WARZONE WE'VE EVER BEEN IN.  

      And if you have links about the disclosure of the decision-making process the Executive Branch used to make targeting and strike decisions in Bosnia, Somalia, Desert Storm, Kuwait, Libya, Pakistan, Georgia, Liberia, Yemen, East Timor and Sierra Leone, I would love to see them.

      Since these things all happened before the Bill of Rights was incinerated and the Executive Branch started wielding tyrannical power, I assume every one of those places listed that all had documented deployment of combat-equipped US troops had crystal clear public decision process and never engaged in any act that hurt or damaged unintended people or property.

      Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

      by Wisper on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 08:09:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  false comparison (0+ / 0-)
      Actually, I might prefer it, as snipers likely cause less collateral damage than drone strikes.
      Drones that are bombing (which is not all a drone can do now or will do - certainly there will be sniper drones someday soon) are not doing the job of snipers; they're doing the job of pilots who would be bombing.

      Whether bombing is an appropriate way to fight global terrorism is an excellent question. Truly. But I don't get the fuss over drone either.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (137)
  • Community (62)
  • 2016 (44)
  • Environment (39)
  • Elections (38)
  • Culture (36)
  • Bernie Sanders (36)
  • Republicans (34)
  • Hillary Clinton (27)
  • Education (25)
  • Climate Change (24)
  • Labor (24)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (24)
  • Barack Obama (23)
  • Media (22)
  • GOP (21)
  • Civil Rights (21)
  • Economy (20)
  • Affordable Care Act (19)
  • Spam (18)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site