The drone matrix.

[MadHound]

"Over the past two years, the Obama administration has been secretly developing a new blueprint for pursuing terrorists, a next-generation targeting list called the “disposition matrix.”

The matrix contains the names of terrorism suspects arrayed against an accounting of the resources being marshaled to track them down, including sealed indictments and clandestine operations. U.S. officials said the database is designed to go beyond existing kill lists, mapping plans for the “disposition” of suspects beyond the reach of American drones.

Although the matrix is a work in progress, the effort to create it reflects a reality setting in among the nation’s counterterrorism ranks: The United States’ conventional wars are winding down, but the government expects to continue adding names to kill or capture lists for years."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/plan-for-hunting-terrorists-signals-us-intends-to-keep-adding-names-to-kill-lists/2012/10/23/4789b2ae-18b3-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_story.html

All done without oversight or due process. Also note the fact that drones have killed nearly as many people as those who died on 9/11. When will enough be enough?

[2on2u]

1. When will we learn to turn them rather than burn them.... I don't know if it is possible but I

understand what you are saying about due process this really is a mess that needs to be handled by the adults, let's hope they are up to the task. The whole drone issue makes me want to hurl.

[MadHound]

2. When drones were first introduced under Bush, they were condemned, and rightfully so, around here,

But now that Obama is in the big chair and controlling them, drones seem to be just fine with far too many people around here. The hypocrisy is stunning.

[MadHound]

5. Go check the archives yourself and find out,

If I start naming names, I will get this post locked for calling out fellow DUer's. So you'll have to check out the archives yourself, but the truth is this indeed has happened.

[MadHound]

16. Sorry, I don't play those games,

Do your own research, see for yourself. Prove me wrong, though I know you can't.

[stevenleser]

23. Asking someone to prove a negative is recognized as fallacious reasoning. its not against DU rules

to call people out anymore.

Either prove it or drop it.

[MadHound]

25. Umm, I think that it is covered under this provision of the TOS,

"Just because it isn't listed here, doesn't mean it's ok. If you post anything which is obviously disruptive, malicious, or repugnant to this community, its members, or its values, you risk being in violation of these Terms of Service."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

The frank matter is that calling out people by name has long been a TOS violation, and just because it isn't specifically mentioned in the new, revised TOS, I'm not going to push my luck by calling out others. You don't like that, too bad. You can do what I told the other poster above, go look it up for yourself. The information is freely available to anybody, including you, who chooses to do their own research.

This isn't proving a negative, this is simply abiding by DU standards, and having people do their own research. OMG, you might actually have to do some work rather than having everything spoon-fed to you

[stevenleser]

41. Its done all the time now and not a TOS violation. This has been covered over and over again in Meta

Nice try though.

And nice try attempting to win an argument by suggesting someone else needs to prove a negative.

Most folks know you've lost the argument when you do that.

[MadHound]

42. Cool, you first then,

Make an OP calling out a DUer about something controversial, and let's see how long it lasts.

I'm not suggesting that you need to prove a negative, just that you need to do your own research.

[stevenleser]

46. OK, MadHound, you are wrong.

There, you are called out.

[MadHound]

27. Mmm-hmm, you are the cute one, aren't you.

Just don't like the truth hitting you in the face that there is indeed hypocrisy on these boards regarding this topic. Tell me, did you support the drone program under Bush?

[MadHound]

36. So, did you support the drone program when it was being run by Bush?

A simple yes or no would do.

[MadHound]

40. Why?

You mention, like others, that it reduces the risk to our troops. But the problem is, in the long run, it is a bigger risk for our country.

We violate the sovereignty of other nations, killing innocents, and radicalizing entire groups against the US, all by the ongoing use of drones. Rather than trying to beat people into submission, perhaps we should try non-violent persuasion. Have you ever read "The Ugly American"? It was written as a critique about what the US was doing in SE Asia during the Vietnam War, but it is equally applicable to our imperial adventures now.

We're trying to win a war of ideas using weapons of a real war. That means we are going to lose. The only way to win a war of ideas is to bring better ideas to the table, not try to bomb nations into submission.

[sabrina 1]

48. They are still condemned by Democrats, at least the ones I know, who

condemned them under Bush. I don't remember any Democrat supporting any of these egregious policies. I mean ordinary people. Unfortunately too many elected Democrats voted for them always making some kind of excuse or another.

But I will always be grateful to those Democrats who stood up for what was right in the Democratic Party. They are what kept me and many others hopeful that we can one day bring this Party back to what attracted so many to it in the first place.

[1-Old-Man]

4. And that list will grow secretly until its tendrils reach out domestically - bet on it.

[sagat]

6. I see no problem with this.

.

[MadHound]

7. Really?

You see no problem with the killing of innocents? You see no problem with violating the sovereignty of various countries? You see no problem with executing Americans and others without the benefit of due process?

Tell me, would you see a problem if a Republican president was doing this?

[sagat]

8. No.

[MadHound]

9. How would you feel if somebody was flying drone missions over the US? n/t

[sagat]

10. Wouldn't care.

[MadHound]

11. So, why are you so supportive of drones,(or at least indifferent to them)? n/t

[sagat]

12. Better drones than troops.

[MadHound]

15. How about simply not killing innocents at all?

How about respecting the sovereignty of nations? How about actually going through due process before executing Americans and others?

[sagat]

17. I'd rather not leave al-Qaeda to their devices.

[MadHound]

18. You really don't understand what's going on then.

Let's see, you call in an attack on what you think is an al-Qaeda target, in a country whose sovereignty we're violating with this attack. You may or may not hit the attack. You may make a clean kill of an actual al-Qaeda operative. On the other hand, you could kill nearby innocents, women, children, whomever. Or worse yet, target the wrong person. What you wind up doing is radicalizing more people than you kill, and al-Qaeda grows even larger.

We are involved in a war of ideas, yet we insist on fighting it like a war of bullets and blood. By insisting on treating it as such a war, and fighting it like such a war, we are bound to lose. We've been down this road before, forty plus years ago in SE Asia. Don't you think we should learn our lesson instead of doing the same old shit again and again?

You want to save the lives of our soldiers, so do I. I think the best way to achieve that end is to not get involved in imperial wars abroad, to stop pissing off people and countries to the point that they will do anything to kill Americans. To stop acting like the bully on the block and to genuinely help people instead of "nation building" other countries into the model we wish to see them.

[sagat]

19. "Don't you think we should learn our lesson instead of doing the same old shit again and again?"

Not going to happen.

It's unfortunate that innocent people are killed, but shit happens.

[MadHound]

20. Well, if everybody takes the same attitude that you do, no, it's not going to happen.

But I would like to think that most people are more enlightened than just "shit happens".

[sabrina 1]

51. That doesn't sound very progressive. In fact I remember that sentiment

very well when we on the Left opposed the War in Iraq and pointed out the loss of life. I remember being told how 'unfortunate' it was that 'innocent people had to die' by the Pro-Iraq-War Bush supporters.

Shit doesn't happen in a vacuum, does it?

Btw, welcome to DU. Did you support the War in Iraq where a lot of shit happened, including the deaths of thousands of US troops all for a lie? Not to mention hundreds of thousands of men, women and children, all of them innocent.

That 'shit' you mention translates into US Troops and innocent civilians.
I'm unimpressed by your ability to disregard the unnecessary loss of human life!

[sabrina 1]

49. But there are no troops in Yemen, in Pakistan which is an ally btw, in Somalia

or anywhere else these drones are being used. So what do troops have to do with any of this?

Btw, did you support the War in Iraq?

[Zalatix]

43. And if you were unfairly declared a terrorist and then targeted?

[progressivebydesign]

22. I see no problem with it, either. Guess Madhound prefers daisy cutter bombs instead. nt

[MadHound]

24. No, actually what I prefer is for the US to respect and abide by the sovereignty of other nations,

Respect and abide by the Constitution, and actually engage in due process before executing somebody.

But hey, thanks for sticking words and sentiments in my mouth.

[sabrina 1]

50. You don't have a problem with the US being at war with dozens of countries

around the world? Can you explain why please?

[sabrina 1]

52. And where would we be using these daisy cutter bombs that you have

these reservations about? Who are we at war with that would require the use of daisy cutter bombs?

According to the Bush Doctrine we are at war in every country in the world, but that has never been our position on the Left, in fact we vehemently opposed the Bush Doctrine, in 'every respect Charlie'.

So can you enlighten us as to where we are substituting Drones for Daisy Cutter bombs?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. And, the criminals planning the killings and doing the killings will not even be tried.

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you." Friedrich Nietzche

[progressivebydesign]

21. Oh, YOU again and the drones. Don't worry, Pres. Romney owns the drone companies. nt

[snooper2]

28. Soon we will upgrade from drones to electronic spiders..

Then there should be 0 collateral damage to worry about

[MadHound]

29. Except there will still be no guarantee of due process,

Continuing to shred the Constitution at home and abroad.

[snooper2]

33. I don't have a problem with little electronic spiders

injecting a dose of poison in some sick fuck who thinks it's okay to burn a girls school down while they are still inside...

[MadHound]

37. And what about due process? Just toss it out the window?

Would you feel comfortable with, oh, say Romney having that kind of power?

[Zalatix]

44. Snooper2 doesn't care about due process because they think they won't ever be targeted

[MadHound]

45. That seems to be a common affliction around here. n/t

[Media Lies]

30. I live in Alabama...

Did they add Governor Bentley to the list yet? Senators Shelby and Sessions might also need to be on the gift list. Christmas time is approaching! Let's start a shopping list of Republicans to help the CIA.

[MadHound]

31. Umm, you're new here, I don't think that you should be threatening violence towards anybody,

Even if it is in jest. That's a violation of the TOS and a quick ticket out of here. Understand the sentiment, but voicing such things is a no-no.

[SidDithers]

32. Obama's poll numbers must be up...nt

Sid

[MadHound]

35. Ah yes, the Canadian who doesn't care about those killed by drones,

Perhaps you would care more if they were being sent into Canada rather than some third world country.

[SidDithers]

38. ...

Sid