Ralph Nader is unsurprisingly still a giant douchebag

[Donerail]

I wasn't talking about bin Laden, I was talking about people like al-Aulaqi, who was senselessly murdered for doing things that threaten the security of this country like having a blog and a Facebook and making YouTube videos.

I'll ask the question again... who cares?

Not many people, because it can't be sensationalized and inserted into pop culture. Doesn't mean it isn't deeply disconcerting.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I wasn't talking about bin Laden, I was talking about people like al-Aulaqi, who was senselessly murdered for doing things that threaten the security of this country like having a blog and a Facebook and making YouTube videos.

I'll ask the question again... who cares?

Not many people, because it can't be sensationalized and inserted into pop culture. Doesn't mean it isn't deeply disconcerting.

     The state is ultimately a collection of people who have taken the authority to rule. They demand a monopoly on violence not because they have any right to one, but because they know that none will have the courage or the means to oppose them. The apologists that emerge in their defense are merely icing on the cake.

[© tweed]

Second, for opponents of drone attacks, what else would you propose we do? I see three options: put soldiers on the ground, use drones, do nothing. The third is obviously not happening because we are a sovereign country and we have the right to defend ourselves and our people. If there is actionable, trustworthy intelligence, then we should kill or capture enemies. That's how being a country works. The long list of Al'Qaeda leaders killed in the last four years should make it clear that Obama isn't traipsing around the world blowing up whatever he wants, unlike his predecessor. Yes, there is unfortunately collateral damage and unfortunately innocent people die. But there is much less of both when you use drone attacks versus putting boots on the ground and invading a country (not to mention of course fewer American soldier deaths, which like it or not should be the U.S. president's first priority).

you've gotten to a point where you actually believe this crap?

[SPC]

I find it strange that the only people I'm agreeing with entirely in this thread are both I-NY.

Amusing how the Democrats have absorbed neocon "logic" now that their man is on the throne.

[Badger]

First of all, the NDAA (more accurately two specific section within the 2012 NDAA) is a kooky internet libertarian strawman attack on Obama, and it's disappointing when smart people fall for this nonsense. The bill is a gigantic defense department funding bill, which includes pay and healthcare costs for soldiers. No president is ever, ever going to veto that, especially over two provisions (in a massive, $700 billion bill) that don't really change the law and which won't be enforced. Acting like this bill was some proto-fascist power grab is ridiculous.

Second, for opponents of drone attacks, what else would you propose we do? I see three options: put soldiers on the ground, use drones, do nothing. The third is obviously not happening because we are a sovereign country and we have the right to defend ourselves and our people. If there is actionable, trustworthy intelligence, then we should kill or capture enemies. That's how being a country works. The long list of Al'Qaeda leaders killed in the last four years should make it clear that Obama isn't traipsing around the world blowing up whatever he wants, unlike his predecessor. Yes, there is unfortunately collateral damage and unfortunately innocent people die. But there is much less of both when you use drone attacks versus putting boots on the ground and invading a country (not to mention of course fewer American soldier deaths, which like it or not should be the U.S. president's first priority).

Post of the week, easily.

[Spanish Moss]

Amusing how the Democrats have absorbed neocon "logic" now that their man is on the throne.

[Lief 🗽]

Does someone want to answer what we should be doing instead of drone attacks?

[Badger]

Of course not, Lief. Reality is a messy distraction to internet idealogues.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Does someone want to answer what we should be doing instead of drone attacks?

     We get attacked because we involved ourselves in that region's politics. We never should have done so and we should hope to extricate ourselves from that mistake. I don't see the need to kill people when alternatives can be considered, but that's just me.

[Link]

I wasn't talking about bin Laden, I was talking about people like al-Aulaqi, who was senselessly murdered for doing things that threaten the security of this country like having a blog and a Facebook and making YouTube videos.

I'll ask the question again... who cares?

Not many people, because it can't be sensationalized and inserted into pop culture. Doesn't mean it isn't deeply disconcerting.

No.  People don't care because the guy was afforded EVERY opportunity to stroll into the nearest US Embassy, Consulate, or military base and give himself up.  Had he done so and coughed up a few of his Al Qaeda chums he would have been "punished" by having to attend a few terrorist rehab classes in Saudi and then free to live his life in peace.  He chose to aid terrorists and live on the run with Al Qaeda in Yemen.  People don't care because even with the war monger Bush in office it was pretty easy for 99.99999% of Americans to avoid getting droned.  Not hard.  Really you should be more concerned about lightning strikes.  Objectively they are a far greater threat to you than Bush/Obama drones.  Other than crazy terrorists who lays awake worried about stuff like this?

[MaxQue]

Obama's not a war criminal in my opinion but he has been aggressive and Dubya-like in many ways.  He's certainly not the kumbaya President libs wanted.

He's exactly the president I wanted and nothing like Bush Jr. Jrwas all about sending hundreds of thousands of ground troops in at great cost, both financial and human. Obama is like a surgeon, sending in high tech drones as needed and finally getting Osama bin Laden, in Pakistan, a place the GOP was too afraid to touch.

High tech drones which have killed tons of innocent individuals, including targets wrongly accused, also including at least one American citizen.

Your point?

The point is that 1st degree murder is bad.

LOL.

If you consider that 1st degree murder, pick up a law dictionary.

Premeditated and willful killing of an innocent man is 1st degree murder, and state-sanctioned death without trial/jury/lawyer/judge is a very large step towards fascism.

Did the Taliban made a fair trial of all people in the WTC and in the planes before launching planes into the twin towers?

This is a war and a perfectly justifiable way of protecting ourselves, which is the first duty of the state, protecting its citizen from attacks by foreign entities.

[SPC]

Did the Taliban made a fair trial of all people in the WTC and in the planes before launching planes into the twin towers?

This is a war and a perfectly justifiable way of protecting ourselves, which is the first duty of the state, protecting its citizen from attacks by foreign entities.

Again, it's amusing how neocons try to justify their actions by holding themselves to their enemies' standards, despite all the nonsense about how their enemies are simply evil.

Aside from that, even your facts are incorrect. The Taliban did not launch any terrorist attacks against the United States prior to the invasion of Afghanistan, that would be al-Qaeda, the organization whose leader the Taliban offered to extradite before Clinton "convinced" them otherwise and again after the United States failed to provide evidence of his guilt.

[Link]

There's not really a debate over whether drone strikes impede the short-term operational capabilities of terrorist organizations, no? I wouldn't dispute that point, at least. As to whether drone strikes have actually made a significant difference in improving the safety of Americans - especially over the long term - that's less obvious, and I'm not sure why some posters here are beginning with this assumption.

What is clear is that drone strikes are politically advantageous for the administration. They cost little, involve no American casualties, and create an appearance of toughness. They're enormously popular in the United States. So there's an incentive for the administration to use drones often, exaggerating the actual benefits of drone strikes while ignoring, minimizing, or papering over the collateral damage: hundreds of civilian casualties, a decline in the moral standing of our country, and the potential for blowback.

Some of what you say may be very true, but the question is what is your alternative?

[SPC]

There's not really a debate over whether drone strikes impede the short-term operational capabilities of terrorist organizations, no? I wouldn't dispute that point, at least. As to whether drone strikes have actually made a significant difference in improving the safety of Americans - especially over the long term - that's less obvious, and I'm not sure why some posters here are beginning with this assumption.

What is clear is that drone strikes are politically advantageous for the administration. They cost little, involve no American casualties, and create an appearance of toughness. They're enormously popular in the United States. So there's an incentive for the administration to use drones often, exaggerating the actual benefits of drone strikes while ignoring, minimizing, or papering over the collateral damage: hundreds of civilian casualties, a decline in the moral standing of our country, and the potential for blowback.

Not to mention the growing possibility that Americans could eventually be on the receiving end of a drone strike.

[Link]

Not to mention the growing possibility that Americans could eventually be on the receiving end of a drone strike.

You didn't read this...

People don't care because even with the war monger Bush in office it was pretty easy for 99.99999% of Americans to avoid getting droned.  Not hard.  Really you should be more concerned about lightning strikes.  Objectively they are a far greater threat to you than Bush/Obama drones.  Other than crazy terrorists who lays awake worried about stuff like this?

[SPC]

There's not really a debate over whether drone strikes impede the short-term operational capabilities of terrorist organizations, no? I wouldn't dispute that point, at least. As to whether drone strikes have actually made a significant difference in improving the safety of Americans - especially over the long term - that's less obvious, and I'm not sure why some posters here are beginning with this assumption.

What is clear is that drone strikes are politically advantageous for the administration. They cost little, involve no American casualties, and create an appearance of toughness. They're enormously popular in the United States. So there's an incentive for the administration to use drones often, exaggerating the actual benefits of drone strikes while ignoring, minimizing, or papering over the collateral damage: hundreds of civilian casualties, a decline in the moral standing of our country, and the potential for blowback.

Some of what you say me be very true, but the question is what is your alternative?

Avoiding hornets' nests? While ending drone strikes would stop killing potential terrorists (and civilians,) it would also stop creating them.

[SPC]

Not to mention the growing possibility that Americans could eventually be on the receiving end of a drone strike.

You didn't read this...

People don't care because even with the war monger Bush in office it was pretty easy for 99.99999% of Americans to avoid getting droned.  Not hard.  Really you should be more concerned about lightning strikes.  Objectively they are a far greater threat to you than Bush/Obama drones.  Other than crazy terrorists who lays awake worried about stuff like this?

So you accept the principle that the government can decide who gets to live and who gets to die? And you don't anticipate any potential for abuse of that power whatsoever? Martin Niemöller would like a word with you.

[Link]

There's not really a debate over whether drone strikes impede the short-term operational capabilities of terrorist organizations, no? I wouldn't dispute that point, at least. As to whether drone strikes have actually made a significant difference in improving the safety of Americans - especially over the long term - that's less obvious, and I'm not sure why some posters here are beginning with this assumption.

What is clear is that drone strikes are politically advantageous for the administration. They cost little, involve no American casualties, and create an appearance of toughness. They're enormously popular in the United States. So there's an incentive for the administration to use drones often, exaggerating the actual benefits of drone strikes while ignoring, minimizing, or papering over the collateral damage: hundreds of civilian casualties, a decline in the moral standing of our country, and the potential for blowback.

Some of what you say me be very true, but the question is what is your alternative?

Avoiding hornets' nests? While ending drone strikes would stop killing potential terrorists (and civilians,) it would also stop creating them.

I believe we are in the process of "avoiding hornets nests."  And we are striking people who have been threatening us.  We are not randomly launching full scale war on Iraq.  Trust me I would like nothing more than for us to extricate ourselves from the middle east.  But to somehow look at the Obama administration and say it is in any way the equivalent of the Bush administration tells me some people are not interested in progress.  This is a big country.  It cannot turn on a dime.  Progress takes time.

[Link]

Not to mention the growing possibility that Americans could eventually be on the receiving end of a drone strike.

You didn't read this...

People don't care because even with the war monger Bush in office it was pretty easy for 99.99999% of Americans to avoid getting droned.  Not hard.  Really you should be more concerned about lightning strikes.  Objectively they are a far greater threat to you than Bush/Obama drones.  Other than crazy terrorists who lays awake worried about stuff like this?

So you accept the principle that the government can decide who gets to live and who gets to die? And you don't anticipate any potential for abuse of that power whatsoever? Martin Niemöller would like a word with you.

If the President of the Unites States picked out at random two perfectly innocent people a year and had them executed that would have zero impact on the general populace.  Fact.

Now the one US citizen that I know about who was executed was not a "perfectly innocent" person.  We can quibble about the process but that guy getting his ticket punched was not the beginning of a slide down a mythical slippery slope.  Honestly.  The president whether it is Bush or Obama is busy enough they don't have the time or inclination to just randomly pick a name out of a hat and kill the person.  Why would anyone in the Oval office want to do that?

[Spanish Moss]

Like I quoted Chomsky, if we followed the Nuremberg laws, Obama wouldn't be in the Oval Office right now.  I'm wholly against capital punishment, but not against his removal from office.  He has done great damage to our Constitution (continuing in the strain of Bush), and is internationally acting so reprehensibly that the fact people are actually defending him alarms me.

[SPC]

Not to mention the growing possibility that Americans could eventually be on the receiving end of a drone strike.

You didn't read this...

People don't care because even with the war monger Bush in office it was pretty easy for 99.99999% of Americans to avoid getting droned.  Not hard.  Really you should be more concerned about lightning strikes.  Objectively they are a far greater threat to you than Bush/Obama drones.  Other than crazy terrorists who lays awake worried about stuff like this?

So you accept the principle that the government can decide who gets to live and who gets to die? And you don't anticipate any potential for abuse of that power whatsoever? Martin Niemöller would like a word with you.

If the President of the Unites States picked out at random two perfectly innocent people a year and had them executed that would have zero impact on the general populace.  Fact.

Now the one US citizen that I know about who was executed was not a "perfectly innocent" person.  We can quibble about the process but that guy getting his ticket punched was not the beginning of a slide down a mythical slippery slope.  Honestly.  The president whether it is Bush or Obama is busy enough they don't have the time or inclination to just randomly pick a name out of a hat and kill the person.  Why would anyone in the Oval office want to do that?

Where do you draw the line on how many innocent civilians are okay to execute? Is James Holmes all right in your book since he only had 12 victims? Also where do you get the idea that only 2 civilians have died from drone attacks? You realize the number is more like 10 for each militant killed?

[Spanish Moss]

Not to mention the growing possibility that Americans could eventually be on the receiving end of a drone strike.

You didn't read this...

People don't care because even with the war monger Bush in office it was pretty easy for 99.99999% of Americans to avoid getting droned.  Not hard.  Really you should be more concerned about lightning strikes.  Objectively they are a far greater threat to you than Bush/Obama drones.  Other than crazy terrorists who lays awake worried about stuff like this?

So you accept the principle that the government can decide who gets to live and who gets to die? And you don't anticipate any potential for abuse of that power whatsoever? Martin Niemöller would like a word with you.

If the President of the Unites States picked out at random two perfectly innocent people a year and had them executed that would have zero impact on the general populace.  Fact.

Now the one US citizen that I know about who was executed was not a "perfectly innocent" person.  We can quibble about the process but that guy getting his ticket punched was not the beginning of a slide down a mythical slippery slope.  Honestly.  The president whether it is Bush or Obama is busy enough they don't have the time or inclination to just randomly pick a name out of a hat and kill the person.  Why would anyone in the Oval office want to do that?

Where do you draw the line on how many innocent civilians are okay to execute? Is James Holmes all right in your book since he only had 12 victims? Also where do you get the idea that only 2 civilians have died from drone attacks? You realize the number is more like 10 for each militant killed?

If this was McCain instead of Obama, a whole lot more Democrats would be flipping their lid.  Party loyalty is destructive to justice.

[Donerail]

I wasn't talking about bin Laden, I was talking about people like al-Aulaqi, who was senselessly murdered for doing things that threaten the security of this country like having a blog and a Facebook and making YouTube videos.

I'll ask the question again... who cares?

Not many people, because it can't be sensationalized and inserted into pop culture. Doesn't mean it isn't deeply disconcerting.

No.  People don't care because the guy was afforded EVERY opportunity to stroll into the nearest US Embassy, Consulate, or military base and give himself up.  Had he done so and coughed up a few of his Al Qaeda chums he would have been "punished" by having to attend a few terrorist rehab classes in Saudi and then free to live his life in peace.  He chose to aid terrorists and live on the run with Al Qaeda in Yemen.  People don't care because even with the war monger Bush in office it was pretty easy for 99.99999% of Americans to avoid getting droned.  Not hard.  Really you should be more concerned about lightning strikes.  Objectively they are a far greater threat to you than Bush/Obama drones.  Other than crazy terrorists who lays awake worried about stuff like this?

So his options were either stay out there and possibly live or turn himself in and be handed over to the gentle hands of the Saudis? Anybody would take freedom and possible death over torture and possible death.

[Sbane]

For those opposed to drone strikes against terrorists in Pakistan and Yemen (as opposed to large scale invasions of counties that didn't attack us), do you also oppose the war in Afghqnistan? If it was a targeted campaign as opposed to nation building, would you still oppose it?

I agree that a lot of terrorists have been created by previous US actions but that does not mean we don't go after the converted. To prevent future terrorists we should clamp down on adventures like Iraq (both times)and Libya as well as not attacking Iran and not giving Israel a blank check. Our policies towards Israel creates infinitely more terrorists than some drone strikes.

[Simfan34]

Obama's not a war criminal in my opinion but he has been aggressive and Dubya-like in many ways.  He's certainly not the kumbaya President libs wanted.

He's exactly the president I wanted and nothing like Bush Jr. Jrwas all about sending hundreds of thousands of ground troops in at great cost, both financial and human. Obama is like a surgeon, sending in high tech drones as needed and finally getting Osama bin Laden, in Pakistan, a place the GOP was too afraid to touch.

High tech drones which have killed tons of innocent individuals, including targets wrongly accused, also including at least one American citizen.

Your point?

Mondale says something sensible for once.