Obama, drones, and a shift in policy

[my miss storm cat]

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-drone-policy/

Thoughts?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by my miss storm cat

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-drone-policy/

Thoughts?

I haven't watched the actual policy speech, which I probably should before making comments, but I found this pretty depressing:

The support for using unmanned aircraft to carry out bombing attacks in foreign countries cuts across party lines – 79 percent of Republicans approve of the targeted killing of suspected terrorists, as do 64 percent of Democrats and 71 percent of independents.

However, the findings of a Gallup Poll taken in March indicate that drone strikes against American citizens or attacks within the United States have much less support. Just over half, 52 percent, disapprove of launching airstrikes against American citizens living overseas who are suspected of terrorism; 41 percent approve.

Two-thirds of the American public opposes drone strikes within the United States against suspected terrorists. Eight in 10 oppose targeting American citizens suspected of terrorism who live here.

So we Americans are fine with unmanned drone strikes of people who are suspected of terrorist activities (not confirmed, just suspected), strikes that may and do kill innocent people, as long as we don't have to see it in our own country. Could we be any more self-centered? Jesus effing Christ.

[Danzig]

'some argue that a new A.U.M.F. would only be a license to wage a war indefinitely'


this is one fear i have. waging a 'war on terror' was something i've taken issue with from the beginning. how to define it. who and where will it be waged? how does the dod determine who is a combatant? what is our objective, what about borders, how do we 'win'?

'wars begin when you will, but don't end when you please'


i was listening to a fellow this morning discussing drone strikes, on npr. he is in favor of due process for gitmo detainees...yet he sees nothing wrong with drone strikes on u.s. citizens abroad who are suspected of terrorist activities. i'm not quite sure how he reconciles the two in his mind, as i can't see how he can feel one way about the one, and the opposite way on the other-with those being shot down being citizens to boot, whilst the gitmo detainees are not.

this evening, heading home, i was listening to how expansive the drone industry has become. it's a several billion dollar a year industry.

at any rate, it's my understanding obama says drones will never be used to target citizens here-but i have a hard time believing that.

[joeydb]

"For the record, I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen—with a drone or with a shotgun—without due process," -Obama, 5/23/2013

Looks like the president may be becoming more pro-life after all, kinda sorta...

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by my miss storm cat

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-drone-policy/

Thoughts?

I am only sorry we can't vote him in for another term

[dino]

Great timing. You think it has anything to do with trying to take the countries attention away from the IRS scandal, or Benghazi, or the AP....ect

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by joeydb

"For the record, I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen—with a drone or with a shotgun—without due process," -Obama, 5/23/2013

Looks like the president may be becoming more pro-life after all, kinda sorta...

Exactly..there are so many innocent people on Death Row he should be saying that.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by dino

Great timing. You think it has anything to do with trying to take the countries attention away from the IRS scandal, or Benghazi, or the AP....ect

Nah...it has absolutely nothing to do with it... completely coincidental...

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by GBBob

Exactly..there are so many innocent people on Death Row he should be saying that.

A trial is "due process" - unlike what Curtis Gosnell was doing.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GBBob

Exactly..there are so many innocent people on Death Row he should be saying that.

i'm also against the death penalty...

but, what due process did the u.s. citizens killed by drones overseas go thru?

Great timing. You think it has anything to do with trying to take the countries attention away from the IRS scandal, or Benghazi, or the AP....ect

you really think people can't keep track of multiple storylines? i can.

[GBBob]

[quote=Danzig;929432]i'm also against the death penalty...

but, what due process did the u.s. citizens killed by drones overseas go thru?


It doesn't..I was just commenting on Joey's concern's for Human Life..admirable, but also wanted to point out other areas of innocents being killed by our Govt. Many more US Citizens have been killed by our Govt by other means than drones. Two wrongs don't make a right, but if you are suddenly so concerned about drones than there are plenty of other places to be concerned as well, starting with death row.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by GBBob

Exactly..there are so many innocent people on Death Row he should be saying that.

Death Row is a state issue, not a federal one. I agree with you absolutely about the abuse of the death penalty, but it's not a federal issue, and, unless you believe a President should actually be a dictator, opining on it is not even remotely part of Obama's job. This is the state's job, and any state can choose to outlaw the death penalty.

The constitutionality of the Death Penalty has already been discussed and decided, and then reversed, by the Supreme Court, back in the 1960s and 1970s (which is why Charles Manson wasn't executed- he was sentenced to death, and then, during the brief period the court ruled it unconstitutional, his sentence was commuted, and then when it was reinstated, the Court said no backsies). Even were it to become a federal issue again, it would be up to the Court, not the President. And I doubt the current court has any interest in revoking the legality of the death penalty (again).

Here's a link with info on which states have the death penalty and which do not:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/stat...-death-penalty

Again, GGBob, I agree with you about the death penalty, but it's a state issue so it's not an applicable comparison in this instance. And there's been a really disturbing trend the past few decades of the Executive Branch taking more and more power (especially during Bush 43's tenure, but it started before that). It's very, very bad, and something both parties should object to, even when a guy from their own party is in the office.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Death Row is a state issue, not a federal one. I agree with you absolutely about the abuse of the death penalty, but it's not a federal issue, and, unless you believe a President should actually be a dictator, opining on it is not even remotely part of Obama's job. This is the state's job, and any state can choose to outlaw the death penalty.

The constitutionality of the Death Penalty has already been discussed and decided, and then reversed, by the Supreme Court, back in the 1960s and 1970s (which is why Charles Manson wasn't executed- he was sentenced to death, and then, during the brief period the court ruled it unconstitutional, his sentence was commuted, and then when it was reinstated, the Court said no backsies). Even were it to become a federal issue again, it would be up to the Court, not the President. And I doubt the current court has any interest in revoking the legality of the death penalty (again).

Here's a link with info on which states have the death penalty and which do not:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/stat...-death-penalty

Again, GGBob, I agree with you about the death penalty, but it's a state issue so it's not an applicable comparison in this instance. And there's been a really disturbing trend the past few decades of the Executive Branch taking more and more power (especially during Bush 43's tenure, but it started before that). It's very, very bad, and something both parties should object to, even when a guy from their own party is in the office.

I absolutely agree with everything above and also the concerns about Drones specifically and the Govt in a bigger manner. My only point, and ..lol..here we go..is that the Right seems to suddenly care a whole lot more about certain issues when it is BO related than when it's some poor guy on Death Row who shouldn't be.

The IRS has been abusing their power for years. Glad the Tea Party finally figured out what the rest of America who has ever been targeted by the IRS knew a long time ago.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by GBBob

I absolutely agree with everything above and also the concerns about Drones specifically and the Govt in a bigger manner. My only point, and ..lol..here we go..is that the Right seems to suddenly care a whole lot more about certain issues when it is BO related than when it's some poor guy on Death Row who shouldn't be.

The IRS has been abusing their power for years. Glad the Tea Party finally figured out what the rest of America who has ever been targeted by the IRS knew a long time ago.

Totally agree with you, and also you make an insightful comment- that many citizens are likely to accept abuses if they are state related, rather than federal, as if states are somehow exempt from bad policy making (which is why, in many cases, I do think federal decisions are necessary- interracial marriage would probably STILL be illegal in some states if they'd been allowed to have their way. In the case of the death penalty, however, it's already been decided on the federal level. Twice. Heh).

And the marvelously readable Charles Pierce has a great piece in Esquire on the increase in Executive Power and how American citizens need to recognize our share of responsibility in letting it happen:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politic...-speech-052313

[Danzig]

[quote=GBBob;929434]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i'm also against the death penalty...

but, what due process did the u.s. citizens killed by drones overseas go thru?


It doesn't..I was just commenting on Joey's concern's for Human Life..admirable, but also wanted to point out other areas of innocents being killed by our Govt. Many more US Citizens have been killed by our Govt by other means than drones. Two wrongs don't make a right, but if you are suddenly so concerned about drones than there are plenty of other places to be concerned as well, starting with death row.

agree with your next post as well.

'how great the sin when someone else commits it'. all this outrage curiously non-existent when it was going on in the previous admin. so many things have remained the same in the current admin, but it's suddenly a huge problem.

[Danzig]

i am reading a newspaper article about the speech. it says the pres. suggested creating a 'secret court' to sign off on strikes.
yeah, not sure i care for that idea.

[art vanderlay]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Death Row is a state issue, not a federal one. I agree with you absolutely about the abuse of the death penalty, but it's not a federal issue, and, unless you believe a President should actually be a dictator, opining on it is not even remotely part of Obama's job. This is the state's job, and any state can choose to outlaw the death penalty.

The constitutionality of the Death Penalty has already been discussed and decided, and then reversed, by the Supreme Court, back in the 1960s and 1970s (which is why Charles Manson wasn't executed- he was sentenced to death, and then, during the brief period the court ruled it unconstitutional, his sentence was commuted, and then when it was reinstated, the Court said no backsies). Even were it to become a federal issue again, it would be up to the Court, not the President. And I doubt the current court has any interest in revoking the legality of the death penalty (again).

Here's a link with info on which states have the death penalty and which do not:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/stat...-death-penalty

Again, GGBob, I agree with you about the death penalty, but it's a state issue so it's not an applicable comparison in this instance. And there's been a really disturbing trend the past few decades of the Executive Branch taking more and more power (especially during Bush 43's tenure, but it started before that). It's very, very bad, and something both parties should object to, even when a guy from their own party is in the office.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...lty/?mobile=nc

Today, Justice Breyer denied a petition from Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee (I-RI) to delay the transfer of a Rhode Island inmate to federal authorities because of the possibility that he would face a death-penalty prosecution. Chafee appealed to the Supreme Court after a federal circuit court refused to delay a decision requiring Rhode Island to turn over the inmate, Jason Pleu, to federal authorities. Federal prosecutors want custody of Pleu in order to try him for the death of a gas station manager during a robbery in 2010 despite the fact that that kind of case is usually tried by state officials. Chafee has refused to turn over Pleu because under federal law Pleu may face the death penalty if convicted.