Bernie Sanders Says He Will Not End Drone Program If Elected President
Source: ABC News & HNGN.com Aug 30, 2015 03:49 PM EDT
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said Sunday that if elected president he would not end the U.S.'s controversial drone program in the Middle East. Sanders told ABC's "This Week" host George Stephanopoulos that he would continue with the targeted killing campaign but suggested he would somehow reform the program so that drones don't kill innocent people abroad.
"I think we have to use drones very, very selectively and effectively. That has not always been the case," Sanders said. Since President Barack Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, at least 2,464 people and 314 innocent civilians have been killed in drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan and Somalia, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
Nine times more strikes have occurred under Obama than under former President George W. Bush. The Obama strikes have killed almost six times more people and twice as many civilians than those ordered in the Bush years. At least seven American citizens have been extra-judicially killed by drones, including one 16-year-old, meaning they were never given a trial as required by the Constitution, according to the National Journal. Obama himself directly ordered many of the strikes.
Another study by the human rights group Reprieve found that as of Nov. 24, 2014, attempts to kill 41 alleged terrorists with drones resulted in the death of as many as 1,147 civilians, including more than 200 children, with thousands more injured. The U.S. has also been known to conduct drone strikes on funerals and weddings, as well as double-tap strikes on rescue workers. Despite the controversial aspects of the program, Sanders said Sunday that he believes there are still effective uses for drones. "What you can argue is that there are times and places where drone attacks have been effective," he said.
Read more: http://www.hngn.com/articles/124393/20150830/bernie-sanders-will-end-drone-program-elected-president.htm
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Hulk
(6,699 posts)No one is for killing innocent civilians. It seems like the lesser of evils, and I believe if Senator Sanders, or anyone else, can "suggest.. he would somehow reform the program so that drones don't kill innocent people abroad". then it would be much better.
I don't want our troops on the ground in danger, and innocent civilians would more than likely be killed then as well, not to mention the troops themselves.
I know it's not popular on this site with many, for many reasons; but it is the lesser of evils.
TexasBushwhacker
(21,202 posts)Not to mention the Commander in Chief is privy to far more intelligence than Sanders is as a senator.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Just because Hillary is the lessor of two evils don't try to trump up this false comparison. Drones are a tool just like guns. They are no different. It's how they are used and by whom. Hillary and Bernie are people and capable of good or evil based on their inherit choices.
EEO
(1,620 posts)Hillary doesn't and won't rock the donor boat.
Lesser of two evils? Hardly.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)For most of us, Hillary doesn't get close enough.
Not so hard to understand if you try.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Netther Explosions nor bullets respect innocence.
EEO
(1,620 posts)Bernie may be able to shrink it a bit, but if we are going to keep being a world power I prefer drones going into harms way than military personnel.
I definitely want to see a humanitarian checklist be met prior to a drone releasing its payload.
WestSeattle2
(1,730 posts)from the beginning. Take it off CNN and the front pages of national newspapers, and into the back alleys. No American boots on the ground.
booley
(3,855 posts)I am not sure the drone program can be reformed.
Not to mention it causes such blow back that even if we do reduce civilian casualties would it matter? It will still be a terrorist recruiting tool
Demeter
(85,373 posts)Still, half a loaf is better than none at all.
Jeb Bartlet
(141 posts)in combating Terrorism, even if there were zero civilian casualties, would be used as a recruiting tool by terrorists. The false assumption here is that they are only using facts to recruit and that's not even close to being true.
markpkessinger
(8,912 posts). . . because they attended a wedding or a funeral, the drone strike itself is the recruiter. The survivors of innocents killed in those strikes will be committed enemies of the U.S. for life -- and with good reason.
riversedge
(80,810 posts)provoke the 'eye for an eye" way of thinking--and I do not blame them (no matter who the President is--or what stripe he has)
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Is there any candidate calling for the elimination of drones? I would certainly doubt it.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)well - not verbatim, but the gist is the same - yet he still gets pilloried for it. In fact, Senator Sanders outlined what people are calling the "Obama Doctrine".
"I think that there's this perception somehow that we're just sending in a whole bunch of strikes willy-nilly," he continued. "This is a targeted, focused effort at people who are on a list of active terrorists who are trying to go in and harm Americans, hit American facilities and American bases and so on."
http://www.rferl.org/content/obama_to_give_first_fully_virtual_interview_awire/24468101.html
Will those who zealously condemned President Obama for the use of drones, but who are now supporting Bernie Sanders on DU and elsewhere, hold Sanders to the same level of criticism? So far, I haven't seen it. What I see is that a double standard is being used. Very disappointing.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)too many civilian deaths to occur with them. I also would like to see them forbidden by police forces in the US.
And why would they only condemn Sanders? Has anyone else said they wouldn't use drones at all? I think hot.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)But many DUers here have excoriated President Obama for "murdering American citizens!!!11" with drones, and have all but crucified him for it...yet they're mum now that Bernie Sanders, not only voted to continue the drone program (I highly doubt many of his most passionate supporters here even knew that) but will continue using it should he become president. Still, the silence of those who have condemned President Obama for the use of drones are now a-okay with Bernie Sanders' stance on it. Double standard, here, or maybe something else?
Have a look at these threads from just a half a year ago:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026555458
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024441688
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022633988
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)It is not the use of drones so much as the killing of innocent lives and the resulting hatred of America that people are condemning.
I fail to see how you expect anyone to condemn Bernie for something he hasn't done. Drones are not the issue and will never go away. How they are used is the issue.
There is no double standard that I can see. Obama is not even running for office.
If I condemned Hillary for using the exact same words Bernie did, that would be a double standard.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)similar grudging acceptance and no pillaring of her exact same stance, same as Obama?
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)But I think you can expect Hillary will be treated just as fairly as Sanders if she says what Sanders said. At least by Sanders' supporters.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Um, yeah. The killing of innocent lives and resulting hatred due to the use of drones by President Obama. Yet Bernie Sanders who voted for the program, supports it, and vows to continue it, gets a pass.
He voted for the program and has pledged to continue it. He is no different when it comes to "fault" than Obama, yet Obama gets excoriated and Sanders gets excused.
President Obama doesn't have to be running for office in order for there to be a discernible double-standard by those who condemned the president for the drone program while now acting like it's not such a big deal now that Senator Sanders approves of it. Still don't see a double standard there? It's pretty clear.
That's a double standard, too. But that doesn't negate the fact that President Obama is held to a different standard by those who excoriated him for the drone program while pooh-poohing now that Bernie Sanders has publicly come out in support of continuing it, does it?
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)to limit the civilian deaths that Obama has been castigated for. You want us to condemn him for something he is promising to limit? I really don't get your point.
And why aren't you asking for all the candidates to be condemned for the same reasons? Not all those posters you are referring to are supporting Bernie. That seems a double standard to me.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)And you believe that? Seriously? You actually believe under a President Sanders there' ll be no civilian deaths?? That no mistakes will be made? That he'll be able to guide those drones with some game-stick in the Pentagon and do so far tighter than has happened under President Obama?
I know you're anything but naive, Live and Learn, so I can only assume you're still trying to excuse Bernie Sanders for voting for and pledging to continue with the very program you and many other people who deeply dislike President Obama have condemned him for. And that's the definition of using a double standard.
Why aren't Bernie Sanders supporters who've condemned President Obama for the use of drones now not condemning Bernie Sanders for publicly supporting it and vowing to continue with it?
I mean, if their main and passionate concern was President Obama using drones to "kill Americans" (remember Anwar al-Awlaki and the hatred toward President Obama for "extrajudicial execution of an American without due process of law) shouldn't they now condemn and be critical of Bernie Sanders' support of that program in order to prevent any more extrajudicial executions of innocent people should he become president? Where's the outrage now? All I hear is...silence.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Mistakes can always happen but one can lessen the chance by being prudent.
Your obsession and complete undeserved disdain for Bernie boggles my mind. You insist on singling him out for things your candidate also supports. I am finding it difficult to take you posts seriously.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)disdain for Senator Sanders, and should he win the nomination, I will happily vote for him. But documented facts matter to me when deciding which candidate to choose. There is no such thing as a perfect candidate. What we need to do as voters is look at the larger picture: what can X candidate realistically do for the country compared to Y candidate. That's all.
I don't have a candidate yet.
However, I am frustrated with Senator Sanders' so-called supporters who have no qualms using a double standard for things he does and says that's no different than what President Obama says or does, yet they tell me that Sanders is a strong progressive/liberal while President Obama has been called everything ugly under the sun like Republican-lite, sell-out, warmonger, conservative, and a few other terms I won't post here or risk a hide.
I detest double standards. To me, it's the mini-me of hypocrisy. So if you find it hard to take my posts seriously because you've decided facts don't matter, then so be it.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Don't you think it wrong to put his name at the forefront when really it is just some DU posters you hate?
I am beginning to really dislike some posters on DU too but I am certainly not going to blame or attach the name of any candidates for their idiocy.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Again, you're mistaken. I don't hate any DUers. Frustrated? Yes.
I don't blame Senator Sanders for the behavior of his supporters, and never made that claim.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Your claim to not be attempting to hurt Sanders by continually using his name is ridiculous. And your stereotyping of his supporters is sickening.
sheshe2
(97,626 posts)I mean, if their main and passionate concern was President Obama using drones to "kill Americans" (remember Anwar al-Awlaki and the hatred toward President Obama for "extrajudicial execution of an American without due process of law) shouldn't they now condemn and be critical of Bernie Sanders' support of that program in order to prevent any more extrajudicial executions of innocent people should he become president? Where's the outrage now? All I hear is...silence.
Double standard and a dose of hypocrisy.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)A problem when the debates start
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)They don't set out to kill innocents. It happens due to faulty intelligence or what the military refers to as "collateral damage." Pretending that will change because you happen to like the president is absurd. It's the same program, same war on terror, and same intelligence. People will continue to die, only then it would be okay because Bernie would be doing the killing.
Sanders has never been a dove. He supports the huge $400-700B Lockeed-Martin F-35 boondoggle. http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/24583-bernie-sanders-doubles-down-on-f-35-support-days-after-runway-explosion He's supported the Israel occupation of Palestine and settlement activity. (see video at:http://www.mediaite.com/online/excuse-me-shut-up-bernie-sanders-defends-israel-from-town-hall-hecklers/) There is nothing in his record to suggest he would be less interventionist than Obama, in fact Obama's pre-presidential record was more dovish. Sanders had the good judgment to vote against the Iraq War Resolution, and he should be commended for that, absolutely. He also, however, voted for the Authorization of Forces resolution following 9/11 and has supported other military exploits--like the Nato/Clinton administration air campaign in the balkans.
If drones are bad under Obama, there is no reason they should be better under Sanders.
It increasingly appears that issues are irrelevant because the only thing that matters is Sanders political prospects. Gun control, drones, consistency on corporate accountability (which does not extend to gun manufacturers or the MIC but only Wall Street), drones, Black Lives Matter, all thrown overboard in order to defend him. That, I believe, is because there is one thing he represents that subsumes everything else: the restoration white, male middle-class and upper-middle class privilege. The irony is that is the trend a president is least able to influence, whereas he would have full authority over drone programs.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)But I am sure that won't stop you from doing it.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)But I do know that many on DU have been raging against Obama's use of drones and killing innocents (especially targeted American citizens).
I believe many people who are upset with Obama may be Bernie supporters...but not all of them.
I personally hate the use of drones, but I prefer them to a boots on the ground war. I don't know if Obama ever had an option to just do nothing in the face of the growing threat of terrorism (ISIL, not so much Al Qaeda)...but he did ramp up the use of drones, resulting in more collateral damage.
I'm not happy about that, but as I said before...what other option did he have? Especially in this fear-filled country full of war mongers.
I'm a pacifist, so I'm against all war and killing, unless done in self-defense. But whose self-defense? Is it OK to watch other innocents be butchered and not come to their assistance when they ask for it? I don't think so.
Did we always make the right choice in choosing who to give aid to? Obviously not, as we actually funded and trained the beginnings of Al Qaeda and possibly ISIL. We seem to make a lot of mistakes. And when innocent people are killed as a result of our mistakes, I really hate it. Collateral damage is always going to happen when people are fighting...no matter how the fighting is done. And I believe Obama has been put in a position where he has tried to suppress terrorism, without all out war or bombing. I don't agree with everything he's done, but I can't really blame him.
I also don't agree with Bernie saying he thinks he can do it better or safer than Obama...unless he means just being more selective and not doing as much of it. There will still be collateral damage and the results will still be more terrorist recruitment. I hate it.
So I don't blame Obama and I'm not happy with Bernie's choice, but I won't blame him either. I wish he could be more like Carter. I don't think Carter would want to use drones. I think until we stop getting involved in terrorism (even defensively) it will continue to grow and haunt us. What will it take to get the leaders of this planet to understand that?
Cha
(319,074 posts)that Sanders has said he would keep them up IF he's elected.. Does that mean they'll stop condemning President Obama for it?
For one thing the vast majority of Sanders supporters are more concerned with cutting back on military action. A drone is merely a mechanism for delivery. Most of us Sanders supporters know that. Bernie is for cutting back on military action except where it is necessary. Hillary is a militarist hawk who supported the Authorization for use of force in Iraq.
That says all I need to know about who is going to be more careful with the use of military force. I think it is sad that you are chiding Bernie supporters for not making the good the enemy of the perfect. Very sad.
Also, if you are actually trying to convince us of supporting Hillary maybe you shouldn't use 'BS' as short for Bernie Sanders. It is incredibly offensive and it actually is making most of us less and less likely to support Hillary or to listen to what you have to say.
okasha
(11,573 posts)And the good Senator's initials are those his parents bestowed on him.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)markpkessinger
(8,912 posts)
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)I have voted Democratic fairly consistently for twenty years now. I go to my caucuses and have even gone to the state convention in Minnesota.
I have not decried your political allegiance and am offended that you would attack mine.
And I think it is telling that you are getting high-fives and congratulations on a post that is little more than an unfounded ad hominem attack by your fellow Hillary supporters on a thread that does nothing more than try to spin Bernie's acceptance of using an air delivery system as a reason to give up on Bernie to let a very hawkish democrat win the primary.
Shame on you.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)on Bernie supporters. It is especially troublesome when it is coming from others that I have supported on important issues here.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Much has been made of Sanders' vote against cluster bombs and his co-sponsorship of Sen. Feinstein's bill to outlaw them eight years ago. Yet he is not listed as a co-sponsor of the iteration of the bill filed by Sen. Feinstein in January of this year.
He was against them before he started to back-pedal?
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)You do realize there could be many good reasons for him not being a co-sponsor. Your twisted logic to make Bernie seem seem guilty of anything is quite telling.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Nothing is ever good enough.
Cha
(319,074 posts)BS is going to do the same?
Well, it's all ok, isn't it?
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)But there are some Sanders supporters who are admitting that they don't approve, but not nearly with the same level of vitriol President Obama had been attacked with which leaves us to wonder again, did they ever support P.B.O. to begin with?
I'm leaning "no, they never have".
Cha
(319,074 posts)to count posts raging on President Obama for his use of drones.
Now that BS has said he would use them IF he were elected.. I don't expect to see one more Whine about President Obama on that issue.
And no, I don't think many ever did support Obama.. just jumped on a Democratic website to spew their vitriol. That's their problem .. junk pile of history.
Mahalo BlueCali.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)and every OP for weeks on end. I just couldn't take it anymore and left for a while. He couldn't do a single thing right and when he did, he never got credit for it. Plus my posts were getting "Hides" on an almost daily basis because I didn't tow the "Obama is eveeel" line. *sigh*
I had provided a few links to another poster that backed that up. You can see them in my post here. Now compare the names of those passionate DUers who criticized President Obama to whom they now support. Telling.
Mahalo, Cha!
Always good to see you. 
Cha
(319,074 posts)Only came back by accident for his re-election in 2012 and discovered DU3 and the BOG.
Now their ignorant cheap pot shots mean nothing to me.. like I said.. it's their problem. They missed and are still missin a whole hellava lot of amazing history.
Thanks for your links, BCD!
Awesome to see you, Blue, Aloha~ 
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)hence my low post-count although I've been here since 2004. At times it got so ugly that I physically winced when I read some posts. Others had me drop my jaw. I avoided DU throughout the 2007 campaign year.
Anytime, dear Cha!
Always a breath of fresh air to see you, Cha. [URL=http://www.sherv.net/][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL][URL=http://www.sherv.net/][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]George II
(67,782 posts)....for not fullfilling ALL of his campaign promises in the first month of his Presidency. It was too much to take.
sheshe2
(97,626 posts)I think we need a header at Du, a forecast of sorts on what is and is not acceptable on DU on any given day. Then it needs to clarify which candidate and current President will be held accountable and the candidates that will be given a pass.
This place is hypocritical.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)But the select group of posters pretending that somehow Bernie supporters are against Obama, Black Lives Matter and Women is pretty disgusting and I am very offended by it.
So don't think you are upsetting those that you claim to dislike so much. No, the ones you are upsetting are those that have been right by your side on most issues and yet think it is quite fair that we get to pick a candidate to support that we feel will help those issues the most. You may disagree but you should at least be fair about it.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)That select group of posters you're referring to isn't pretending. Posts speak for themselves. Hides of posts that are even just a tad critical of Bernie Sanders speak for themselves. The unfair criticism of President Obama and the lame excuse of "holding his feet to the fire" remarks speak for themselves. And although there are always exceptions to any rule, the general consensus is that the vast majority of current Bernie Sanders supporters have been notoriously, even virulently anti-Obama - based purely on their posts and the rude and obnoxious attitude and habit to make things personal with which they write them.
You may disagree, but you should at least be fair about that, as well.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)because you dislike a few. It seems discriminatory and sick.
It is not the vast majority of Sanders supporters unless you think that 90% of DU is against Obama since Bernie has a 90% poll rating on DU.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)His supporters frustrate me. Those I dislike I put on ignore and blacklist. A few who have been on my list have since been removed as trolls so my intuition, that they're not Democrats or Liberals but trolls, has, in their cases, been vindicated. It's certainly freed up my lists considerably.
Bingo.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)And neither he, nor the majority of his supporters deserve it.
Shame on anyone using this deplorable technique to justify their support for any candidate.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)And FYI, we are supposed to be critical of candidates - just as long as they're true criticisms based in fact, not fiction. My criticisms of Senator Sanders all are backed by his own legislative (or lack thereof) accomplishments. My criticism of his supporters on this and other boards are based on their posts and the obvious double standard they use to write them when it comes to Bernie. Just because you believe no one should criticize a candidate you support for an elected office, and I do, doesn't make my criticism 'deplorable'. It makes it necessary.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)I am doubtful I will in the future. I do not find any of your synopsis credible.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)I see a few Bernie supporters - some of whom are defending Obama in the links.
Lots of people that I don't know who they are supporting.
But I don't see the four of you at all.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Really, I am. I really had pretty high respect for you and your posts.
Cha
(319,074 posts)attacking President Obama for using Drones.. and now it's all ok because BS came out for it?
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)saying I'm disappointed to see you participate in attacks and "you're a Big Disappointment", don't you. One is a personal attack.
And it really is not okay to call Bernie, BS.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)using weaponized drones is an appalling and grotesque application of lethal force, and should be discontinued immediately.
On an actual battlefield, drones can be employed as legitimate weapon platforms, but their use by our presidents as means to kill people selected solely by the Executive on a global basis, and outside of the context of imminent or actual hostilities is, I believe, unconstitutional and, in some cases, murder. It is not warfare, and as such, the death of even a single non-target is a thing of callous brutality.
So, no - I will not apply a double standard to Sanders. The thing that really burns me is how popular among American voters the program is. I can't imagine any American president renouncing the power and means, apparently eagerly bestowed upon him/her by the majority of the nation's citizens, to kill without any accountability for his/her actions. That's what grieves me.
alarimer
(17,146 posts)Drone killing is too easy. Some kid in a room in Las Vegas pushes a button and, thousands of miles away, people die. And then he goes home to his friends and family. Because it's so easy, it is used way too much. It has become something we do without thinking of the consequences. At least with "boots on the grounds" it pays to be more judicious in their use. OUR people may die. But with drones, there is no such compunction.
markpkessinger
(8,912 posts). .. of Obama's drone program. Yes, I disagree with Sanders on this issue. I likely disagree with HIllary's position on it, too. But I agree with Sanders on a host of issues. As for Hilary, it's kind of hard to know whether I agree with her or not on some things, because she refuses to declare herself.Look, I learned a long time ago that there is no such thing as either a perfect candidate or a perfect president. Regardless of whether I vote for a particular candidate, there will be things that candidate does, if elected, some of which I will sup0port and some of which I won't. I may even have some areas of very strong disagreement. But my supporting a candidate and voting for that candidate, doesn't give that candidate free pass. If I strongly disagree with what a particular President is doing -- including President whose election I supported -- I will speak out, and strongly so. There was a time in this country when that was understood to be a good and healthy thing.
The only folks who think this story reveals some deep, dark double standard among Sanders supporters are, I submit, those who equate "support" of a candidate with marching in lockstep with that candidate. Well, I've got news for you: I don't do lockstep.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)It tells me you have integrity. It tells me you are a true Liberal in heart and soul who believes in equality and fairness on all levels.
No. The people who think this issue is revealing a deep dark doubt standard among Sanders supporters already have evidence to back that claim up, from Sanders supporters. The loudest voices on DU excoriating President Obama for using drones that had killed American citizens (albeit American citizens vowing to kill Americans in America) are now equivocating, even excusing, Bernie Sanders' support in votes and deeds of that same drone program.
It may come as a surprise to them, but Bernie Sanders is also decidedly hawkish when it comes to foreign policy.
In 2001, Sanders did not support the vote in Congress to oppose the war in Afghanistan. Congresswoman Barbara Lee stood alone! This vote was followed by his support for appropriations to support both the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. In 2003 he supported the resolution that gave support to George W. Bush in both Iraq and in the larger war against terrorism, although Sanders has been a critic of the Iraq War.
Then Sanders supported only a gradual withdrawal from Iraq. When impeachment was on the so-called table against George W. Bush in 2006, he said that impeachment was “impractical.”
Sanders, like his Democratic allies, has supported Israel’s aggressive Middle East policies against Palestinian statehood. He supported HR 282, the Iran Freedom Support Act, which was similar to the resolutions leading to the Iraq War. Indeed, it appears that Sanders is even to the political Right of many liberal Democrats!
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/27/bernie-sanders-savior-or-seducer-of-the-anti-war-left/
We expect hawkishness in Hillary Clinton (and believe that, after working under President Obama as his SoS, she's mellowed out on that). That's no secret. But the last thing anyone would expect in an avowed Liberal and Socialist is the degree of hawkishness Senator Sanders has exhibited through his votes and support of foreign policy.
markpkessinger
(8,912 posts), , , with Sanders supporters in general, When you say that "the loudest voices on DU excoriating President Obama for using drones that had killed American citizens (albeit American citizens vowing to kill Americans in America) are now equivocating, even excusing, Bernie Sanders' support in votes and deeds of that same drone program, what are you basing your assessment that those who are equivocating in this thread were "the loudest voices on DU" that were critical of Obama's use of drones? Have you made a count of each of those users' past statements against Obama's drone policy relative to those of other DUers who were likewise critical of that policy? Somehow, I doubt it. I think you are imputing to Sanders supporters as a whole the excuses that are being made by a handful. I mean, I was certainly one of the louder voices criticizing Obama's use of drones. But my support of candidates doesn't typically rise or fall based on a single issue. Nor do I suspect it does for most Sanders supporters.
Raymondo22
(31 posts)For example, the war in Afghanistan, which was officially started as a way to get Bin Laden. Drones would have been a much less destructive approach.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Lindsay Lohan Claims She Was Drugged At Friend's Wedding, Runs Around Naked.
Naked? Where's all the pics of that?
HubertHeaver
(2,539 posts)Didn't happen.
Lindsay made the claim, Lindsay has to prove it.
big_dog
(4,144 posts)
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)http://www.hngn.com/articles/124376/20150830/george-zimmerman-goes-on-bizarre-twitter-rant-calls-president-obama-ignorant-baboon.htm
Kyle Jean-Baptiste, First Black Man To Star In 'Les Misérables,' Dies at 21
http://www.hngn.com/articles/124354/20150830/kyle-jean-baptiste-les-mi%C3%A9srables-actor-dies-21-fall-fire.htm
TSA Agent Accused Of Molesting Student In Bathroom Pat Down
http://www.hngn.com/articles/124325/20150829/tsa-agent-accused-molesting-student-bathroom-pat-down.htm
Boko Haram Militants Executed By Firing Squad In Chad
http://www.hngn.com/articles/124372/20150830/boko-haram-militants-executed-firing-squad-chad.htm
Bangkok Bombing Suspect: Thai Police Arrest Turkish National Connected To Erawan Shrine Blast
http://www.hngn.com/articles/124348/20150830/bangkok-bombing-suspect-thai-police-arrest-turkish-national-connected-erawan.htm
Hurricane Ignacio to Hit Hawaii: Tropical Storm Watch Issued For Big Island
http://www.hngn.com/articles/124332/20150829/hurricane-ignacio-hit-hawaii-tropical-storm-watch-issued-over-big.htm
Indian Village Council Orders Low Caste Sisters To Be Raped, Paraded Naked For Brother's Actions
http://www.hngn.com/articles/124251/20150829/indian-village-council-orders-low-caste-sisters-raped-paraded-naked.htm
Kansas Man To Be Sentenced For Wichita Airport Bomb Plot, Could Face 20 Years of Prison Time, Judge Says
http://www.hngn.com/articles/124379/20150830/kansas-man-sentenced-wichita-airport-bomb-plot-face-20-years.htm
Bernie Sanders And Martin O'Malley: Democratic Party Rigging Primary Process In Favor Of Hillary Clinton
http://www.hngn.com/articles/124316/20150829/bernie-sanders-martin-omalley-democratic-party-rigging-primary-process-favor.htm
and so much more on the front page of the site!
http://www.hngn.com/
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)How many times has she been to rehab?
News would be if she wasn't drunk or drugged.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts) big_dog
(4,144 posts)inquiring minds need to know!
glinda
(14,807 posts)deployment and use of them.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)my only requirement...
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)I think the premise of disallowing them completely is ridiculous. Using them as little as possible makes much more sense.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I gotta admit, some of Sanders' foreign policy positions aren't my cuppa - but to be frankly honest, I don't expect any US presidential candidate to ever have a sane and beneficial middle east foreign policy, so it comes down to who I think will do better within those sadly deficient parameters. That person is still Sanders.
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)From where exactly did you "get it"?
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)I added the bold, but the Italics is all yours.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1193210
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)We are discussing the positions of 2016 Democratic presidential candidates, aren't we?
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)So, you like Obama now?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)President Obama really isn't a factor in this.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Bernie hasn't done that. If he does, I am sure people will call him on it too. He is implying he would only use them when needed and limit civilian casualties. How can that be bad?
rury
(1,021 posts)I am a pacifist liberal who hates manufactured wars. But I am a realist who does not expect any commander-in-chief not to gather intelligence and take the steps deemed necesary to protect the nation. I was not disappointed that President Obama ordered drones to be utilized and am not disappointed that Sanders or any future Democratic president would do the same.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Some are even excusing Sanders' stance on the drone program he actually voted for, now that he's come out publicly in support of continuing with it should he become president.
The inconsistency of his supporters (former and current anti-Obama members) in hating the drones under President Obama and all but excusing it for Senator Sanders is very troubling.
Juan Cole (an oft-mentioned voice for progressives on this site) wrote, in part, the following on 04/30/2015 that should make us pause and ask, is Bernie Sanders more supportive of Tel Aviv than the United States? Is that why he's so supportive of drone attacks in the M.E.?:
http://www.juancole.com/2015/04/president-bernie-sanders.html
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)because they don't like what they hear/read? Odd.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Maybe Juan Cole needs to consider his phrasing.
...Well, except that was YOUR writing,
not Juan Cole's.
My mistake, I didn't mean to disparage Juan Cole
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I expect to see his loyalty questioned more often as the primaries progress.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Every politician will make you go hmmmmmm on something. I thoroughly detest the drone program, it is the political price any President has to pay.... A thinning of personal principles to having to face the reality of lubricating the massive American war machine.
The reality of America supporting Saudi being a friend, although also a dictatorial slave state now killing civilians by the hundreds due to their incompetent and remorseless American supplied Air Force and pilots, for starters, is another example of reality over personal principle.
The paradox can be forgiven and acceptable in an otherwise favored and admired political person - for a time.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Using drones saves military lives. Using them prudently is the key and I trust Sanders to do so.
stopwastingmymoney
(2,347 posts)And there are many many good ones here
Wash. state Desk Jet
(3,426 posts)
https://s.yimg.com/fz/api/res/1.2/ntkthpv54c3RweyWfsSDwg--/YXBwaWQ9c3JjaGRkO2g9NTMxO3E9OTU7dz04MDA-/
Drones, I'll have to think about that.
big_dog
(4,144 posts)APU (Auxilary Power Unit) turboshaft engine powering a highly modified golf cart through a hydrostatic transmission. Aprox 50 hp through the trans to the wheels. 5 hp engine is used for starting rather than 2 large truck batteries. The hydrostatic transmission allows for instant forward and reverse changes,without any shifting, and nearly unlimited torque. Top speed was gearing limited to about 35 MPH at the golf course
Powered by an APU (Auxilary Power Unit) engine from a KC135, driving a hydraulic transmission. Front disk brakes can line lock for a burnout, but the engine eats all the smoke!
big_dog
(4,144 posts)
Wash. state Desk Jet
(3,426 posts)Last edited Mon Aug 31, 2015, 04:47 PM - Edit history (2)
With the many options viewed ,sparing no expense, with great pleasure I chose the affordable Ford image replicating the Ford F150 but also in a stylizing way about it, it reflects the mood of the nation in the 1940's. ' Here you see what can seem to be a reminder of the Ford jeep rolling off the assembly lines at the Ford production plant. Some say it was the jeep that won the war. The women who worked the assembly lines, Rosy the riveter and other such great great contributors to the war effort .
As you may be able to see, I am building up a campaign on the trail.,tailored made for the road ahead.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)same story, different day: it's hard to be enthusiastic about that.
He also supported Israel's recent atrocities against the Gaza Strip.
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)Extra-judicial murder... I have never supported it or drone use out of legitimate, that is legal war.
The war on civilians, oh sorry collateral damage is abhorrent, a war crime if I may be so bold.
I don't know anything about the Israeli stuff so I can't comment on that.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)First State Legalizes Taser Drones for Cops, Thanks to a Lobbyist
North Dakota police will be free to fire ‘less than lethal’ weapons from the air thanks to the influence of Big Drone.
It is now legal for law enforcement in North Dakota to fly drones armed with everything from Tasers to tear gas thanks to a last-minute push by a pro-police lobbyist.
With all the concern over the militarization of police in the past year, no one noticed that the state became the first in the union to allow police to equip drones with “less than lethal” weapons. House Bill 1328 wasn’t drafted that way, but then a lobbyist representing law enforcement—tight with a booming drone industry—got his hands on it.
snip ...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-lobbyist.html
http://www.wired.com/2015/08/securit...police-drones/
okasha
(11,573 posts)Sanders isn't going to take business away from Lockheed Martin, who make the F-35 and are a primary supplier of drones to the military.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Drones do save lives. Bernie is simply saying he would be even more careful about when and where to deploy them. Nothing at all wrong with that.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts) okasha
(11,573 posts)As far as I know, Hillary does not have the cozy pork barrel relationship with Lockheed Martin that Sanders does.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)She represents the booming military industries.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Hillary is not running as a vague sort of "peace" candidate as Sanders is. Nor is she throwing $1.4 trillion down the black hole swirling around the F-35 Turkey to create a handful of jobs in her home state. Neither did she vote to turn the Apache sacred lands at Oak Flat over to a foreign mining corporation because the MIC wants the copper. Sanders has, and did.
Like it or not, Sanders is up to his eyeballs in the morass created by the American war machine.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)So all of us Bernie supporters should line up behind the candidate that voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq.
Do you honestly think you are going to convince anyone on this issue that Hillary is less of a hawk than Bernie? If my candidate were this wrong on an issue I think I would just quietly let it pass by and hope no one notices.
okasha
(11,573 posts)about who and what they're voting for. Sanders is no pacifist, and his IWR vote doesn't make him one.
Martin Eden
(15,628 posts)IMO extrajudicial killings are (or should be) illegal, and the unavoidable "collateral" damage recruits more terrorists than we kill.
Which candidates have declared they'd end the drone program?
I would have to weigh this issue against other issues that are higher on my list, if another Dem candidate pledged to end the drone program as part of an even larger move away from military solutions and catering to the MIC.
24601
(4,142 posts)not the anything during engagement.
Martin Eden
(15,628 posts)We're killing people in countries where our military is not fighting.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)...if drones are killing people in some country, our military is fighting there.
Martin Eden
(15,628 posts)It means the United States can kill anyone, anywhere, just by asserting their target is a terrorist or enemy combatant.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)...military operations are milatary operations regardless of whether they are carried out by drones or by manned aircraft or boots on the ground.
What difference does it make if a terrorist or enemy combatant is killed by a drone operated remotely, a manned aircraft or a sniper ? What ethical or legal distinctions are there?
Martin Eden
(15,628 posts)The ethical/legal/moral wrong is conducting "military operations" anywhere in the world without a declaration of war, without a specific authorization by Congress, and without the conditions recognized by international law and the Geneva Conventions that apply to war.
It is not war.
It is extrajudicial assassination carried out by our military.
Whether it be a drone, a surgical strike team, or a bomb dropped from high altitude is not the point. The drone program is not about the weapon; it's about the US government claiming the license to kill anyone anywhere regardless of justice or law and with impunity when innocents are killed in the process.
It is American exceptionalism at its worst. In addition to being morally and ethically wrong, it's stupid. There will be blowback. There has been blowback. We're playing a losing game of whack-a-mole, and losing whatever credibility we once had as the leader of the free world and as a shining light of justice and the rule of law.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)..... that was my point - a lot of folks seem to get excited about drones when they are being used simply as another weapon of war.
Here is an example of an extra judicial killing of an American citizen, on American soil that occurred during the last DU drone debate:
http://www.pressherald.com/2013/02/04/police-sending-food-medicine-to-ala-child-hostage/
While many DUers were all up in arms about a drone strike on a foreign based American citizen who was actively engaged in terriorstist activites, this went down. No accusations of extra judicial killings. No demands for acts of Congress to declare war. Not a peep.
Extra judicial killings are a common, frequent occurrence in our, and in fact, in any, system of justice.
Martin Eden
(15,628 posts)The situation in Alabama involved an active crime scene in which the life of an innocent victim was immediately at stake.
Such is not the case when we fire a missile attempting to kill a suspected terrorist who may or may not be plotting an attack against us. Furthermore, we are killing many more innocent civilians than targeted individuals.
The Alabama analogy would fit better if we bombed the bunker, killing the boy and his family along with the perp.
But the analogy still wouldn't hold.
Your initial rationalization was the drone is just another weapon operated by our military in a battlefield situation, as in a war. There is a difference between a battlefield and a crime scene, and between the police and the military.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)Anwar al-Awlaki was judged by the administration to be an imanent threat and the strike was approved by Obama for that reason. So the legal basis for the action raken was exactly the same in both cases. This was made very clear and explicit at the time. To those who were paying attention .
Since you recognize that the police are (and presumably should be) authorized to take such actions, I presume that you do recognize the necessity and legitimacy of extra judicial kilkings. The purpose of the police and the military is to excersize force on behalf of a people for their security and well being. The police ensure justice for our people among our people, the military ensures justice for our people among other peoples . In both cases, justice was served.
Martin Eden
(15,628 posts)It's the difference between the rule of man and the rule of law, upon which our country was founded.
Was Alabama a battlefield in a war zone? If not, your analogy doesn't hold.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)Last edited Tue Sep 1, 2015, 06:45 AM - Edit history (1)
.... the Alabama hostage situation, was the decision to act made by the administration or by a court of law? It was made by the administration, in this case the police, a part of the executive branch. Neither, according to those who have commented here, took place on a battle field, since we are told that Congress had not declared war. Both actions were taken to prevent an imminent threat.
Another instance is the shooting of the Somali pirates by Navy seals during a hostage standoff in international waters in the Indian Ocean. Was this a battle field? Did congress declare war? Was a judge involved?
It seems evident to me that extra judicial killings are carried out regularly, by all civilized countries, both domestically by the police and internationally by the military, as a normal part of the administration of justice. It seems to me that the same generally accepted legal principles are involved in both cases.The analogy holds to the point that this isn't an analogy but simply an instance of the same legal principle and necessity to act.
Here is a link to the administrations justification as provided to Congress :
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf
Martin Eden
(15,628 posts)You're blurring the distinction between the civilian and the military.
You're also ignoring the distinction between a rescue situation in a direct confrontation to save a life, as opposed to assassination by remote control. These are not directly comparable, regardless of your insistence on ignoring the clear differences. A distinction must also be made between a rescue operation on our own soil or in international waters, and dropping bombs inside the borders of a foreign sovereign nation.
Finally, perhaps for the biggest reason, I oppose the drone program in the "war on terror" because it's killing more innocent civilians than intended targets. It is a losing strategy and a gift to recruiters for the likes of ISIS. Afghanistan is a war zone, but crossing other borders with our lethal missiles with little regard for the lives of people who live there creates more enemies and only serves to perpetuate terrorism because WE are committing acts of terrorism on a regular basis.
markpkessinger
(8,912 posts)The man in the Alabama case was holding a hostage, a five-year-old child. In a situation like that, police are authorized to do whatever it takes to save the hostage. The man wasn't executed because he had been adjudged guilty of kidnapping. He was shot in the course of a rescue operation to free a five-year-old child.
In the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, he was alleged to have been a senior Al-Qaeda operative, and was alleged to have participated in the planning of 9-11 and other incidents of terrorism. Now, he very well may have been guilty of those crimes. But there was no imminent threat that required immediate neutralization. Al-Awlaki, unlike the kidnapper in Alabama, was presumed guilty, and was executed based ONLY on that presumption. The two situations are not remotely comparable.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)Since you recognize that the police are (and presumably should be) authorized to take such actions, I presume that you do recognize the necessity and legitimacy of extra judicial kilkings.
In actual fact, Anwar al-Awlaki was not targeted for the crimes you mention. He was judged by the administration to be an imanent threat and the strike was approved by Obama for that reason. So the legal basis for the action taken was exactly the same in both cases. This was made very clear and explicit at the time. To those who were paying attention .
markpkessinger
(8,912 posts)A threat does not become "imminent" merely because an administration says it is so. The mere fact that a suspect may be involved in planning some future attack, or that he might (even imminently) recruit others to his cause. The word suggests that the thing deemed "imminent" will, if the suspect is not neutralized by any means necessary that very moment will take place immediately, or very nearly immediately. Neither do we know, because the Obama Administration refuses to unredact the portion of the Justice Dept. memo on which it relied that discusses the same, on what basis the Obama administration made the determination that he was an "imminent threat." You might well believe President Obama can be trusted to make a call like that. But the bigger question is, if, say (God forbid) Donald Trump were to win the presidency, would you be comfortable with him making such an unaccountable determination regarding the life and death of an American citizen? I sure as hell am not comfortable with that prospect!
It is rather akin to a suspect who is charged with murder, and claims self defense in defense against the murder charge, who, on the basis of a belief that a particular suspect had participated in causing harm to the defendant at some prior point, and his belief that the same suspect will likely do the same thing again in the fairly near future, goes to his alleged tormentor's favorite golf course and, using a rifle with a high-powered scope and while hiding in a blind 1000 yards away, shoots the person in "self defense." Such an argument would be laughed out of any courtroom in this country.
Beyond that, however, do you seriously believe Al-Awlaki's 15-year-old son, who was targeted and killed in a separate drone strike two weeks after his father, represented an "imminent threat?"
PosterChild
(1,307 posts).... analysis provided by the administration to Congress .
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf
The phrase used is "imminent threat of violent attack".
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)...to the administrations justification as provided to Congress
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf
markpkessinger
(8,912 posts)I'm not defending Anwar al-Awlaki. He was a despicable man. But he was a U.S. citizen, and should at least have been entitled to a trial before a jury of his peers. And there is no evidence that his 15-year-old son even committed any crimes.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)by Obama, the entire world is a 'battlefield' in a never-ending undeclared 'war.'
According to actual reality and logic, the people we target with our drone strikes are not combatants, not on a battlefield, and not in a war. We just want to use the rules of war to kill people without actually going through the trouble of declaring an actual war.
Martin Eden
(15,628 posts)Kill them first based on the possibility they might attack usin the future.
It was wrong in the macro war of Iraq, and it's wrong in the micro strikes of drone assassinations.
uppityperson
(116,020 posts)stuck together to look like 4. Admin has stated that if an article is published with only 1 sentence in a paragraph, that is the paragraph. Thank you.
PSPS
(15,321 posts)Reading the thread here, it seems that this should mean Bernie will be just another war criminal president. Sorry, but that's just silly and completely unjustified, although the original article is purposely intended to make that implication and, thus, undermine Bernie's support.
No rational person can argue with Sanders' statement.
Karma13612
(4,981 posts)what Bernie states, if taken just as it was said, it very valid, logical and supportable.
Sometimes, reading between the lines, is actually an exercise in creating hidden meaning that isn't there.
I think Bernie is sincere and will do his utmost to be fair and careful in his decisions on military action.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Bernie and Hillary are universes apart when it comes to militarization abroad and domestically.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Bernie didn't authorize a war in Iraq for Bush, who might be one of the most incompetent presidents in American history.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Reality starts to set in....disappointment soon to follow...as predicted.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)R B Garr
(17,984 posts)
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)
truthisfreedom
(23,532 posts)Out of mind.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)I still have to put a check in the minus column for Sanders on this one.
I'm not for any sort of normalized drone use.
And the extra-judicial killing of US citizens has to be stopped.
BlueEye
(449 posts)To be used RESPONSIBLY. I trust Bernie would use exercise good judgement before pulling the trigger.
Bluebrick
(1 post)Can anyone share with me what about the below message is anyway offensive or inappropriate? ABC News blocked me from commenting within less than 5 minutes after posting. They didn't just delete the comment, they banned me from making any comments on their site with any account linked to my IP address. Please enlighten.
Offending Comment, Posted in response to the subject "This Week" interview on the ABC site:
I don't understand how anyone would interpret Clinton losing support somehow doesn't translate into support for Sanders. That's exactly what it is. Support for Sanders. As a Sanders campaign volunteer, I can tell you that it has nothing to do with not supporting Clinton. It has to do with understanding this is the better message and the better candidate. I was one of the only people I knew in 2003 that stared unbelievably at the television wondering where investigative journalism was when we decided to invade another country. I said, this is another Vietnam. Why doesn't anyone else see this? I never saw credible media reports of evidence of weapons of mass destruction. The group-think of 9/11 turned us into a police state. Very few people had the guts to see the truth and say it in 2003/4, but Bernie did.
Full disclosure, when I say volunteer, I mean I have done nothing but participate in social media and "sign up" for events by email. I'm a citizen not a political operative.
NRaleighLiberal
(61,857 posts) Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)They don't like to be called on their lack of reporting.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Wash. state Desk Jet
(3,426 posts)As to main streme media, it is not about freedom of opinion or expression where the reader/viewer is of concern. It is about what is or isn't except able print worthy feedback. In effect censorship. It's not about truth . If it were scumbags like Brian Willams would not exist.
randys1
(16,286 posts)it makes killing too easy...
Of course the repercussion would exist, just not instantly.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts).? I don't think of that as a problem. I think of it as a virtue . I want as little risk for amercan service women and men as possible with maximum effect.
randys1
(16,286 posts)What if President Donald Trump decides to start droning people in the ME at a much higher rate, with disregard to civilians, as he has said he would do.
Is that gonna be OK with you too since none of our people are harmed?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Honestly, I never really understood the anti-drone thing. A drone is a delivery system for a bomb. I have no idea why people were so excited about drones as opposed to cruise missiles, smart bombs, or any other delivered munitions.
What I know Bernie will be for is using military force more carefully.
salib
(2,116 posts)Yes, he wants to reduce Pentagon spending in a fairly dramatic way. However, his position on drones is as wrong fundamentally as the mainstream.
When did it become ok to lob missiles, send drones, etc., into Severn countries just because we do not like what is going on in those countries, or there are people I those countries that we think might be a threat to something we might care about?
It is fundamentally wrong. We will need to make it clear to Bernie that is case.
Still he is the closest one to the right understanding on this issue of those running right now.
4bucksagallon
(975 posts)totodeinhere
(13,688 posts)
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)issue, I won't do it to any other candidate either,
because the problem is much bigger than the drones
themselves.
What will happen to even the most peaceful person
in the WH, when the CIA, NSA, and the MIC steadily
tell her/him that action of this sort is essential?
JFK was barely able to stop a nuclear war during the
Cuban missile crisis, and I bet you that those
agencies pushed him hard to react in a harsher way.
That means we have to kind of guess how any
candidate would react under the steady pressure
of the war lovers.
When W ran I thought it might lead to some kind
of war, not so with Obama. It is a question of character,
and there I trust Bernie, although I could be wrong.
markpkessinger
(8,912 posts)
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)BTW, the Obama team uses a drone protocol. You can google it.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)He clearly states that he would be a lot less generous with the programs use.
It keeps boots off the ground, it does serve it's purpose.
Innocents shouldn't die, and if used CAREFULLY and in a VERY limited fashion, I think it can be done.
Technology is only getting better as well so, it'll only be a month or two before these drones can target a car and only destroy it alone.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)brooklynite
(96,882 posts)NYCButterfinger
(755 posts)If Sanders is president, we won't have so much drones. I applaud his courage to say this. Less drones. Not more.
Cha
(319,074 posts)But, now it's okay since BS came out with this verification that he would use Drones IF he got in?!
PatrickforO
(15,425 posts)that's what most of the people on earth want. There are still some serious bad guys out there. My hope is that with Bernie we will stop BEING the biggest, baddest guys and begin promoting peace, social, economic and environmental justice.
But let's not lay down our arms just yet.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)
PBass
(1,537 posts)I like Bernie (and I like Hillary too) and I will very likely vote Bernie in the primary. But I suspect that there are a lot of unrealistic fantasies on DU about what a Sanders presidency could accomplish. I seriously anticipate a LOT of feelings of betrayal and anger on the Left when President Sanders takes centrist positions after taking office as President, because pretty much every President moves to the center after taking office. I have my doubts that a Sanders presidency and a Clinton presidency would differ in any major ways.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Among actual Bernie supporters there have never been any unrealistic fantasies about what he might do in office. We've never held him up as a 'perfect', 'pure' leftist, despite the caricatures of us as people looking for unicorns. So I'm sorry, but the only way you'll see a lot of 'feelings of betrayal' is if Bernie suddenly abandons the positions he's championed for 50 years, which just isn't going to happen.
Martin Eden
(15,628 posts)Bush moved to the right after campaigning as a moderate.
I expect President Sanders will be somewhat constrained on the foreign policy front, but I think you're badly mistaken if you think Bernie will stop pushing for his domestic economic agenda.
You can also count on him being far less likely to embrace military solutions than HRC.
Jappleseed
(93 posts)Oh well on to the next candidate.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)First and foremost, one must not arbitrarily take out programs without knowing more details about it, and figure out the possible repercussions.
I can understand the idea of changing scope and slowly making it less of a priority.
Too early to make that decision to begin with. In regards to military and international matters, I tend to give some leeway where much of the positions a person can take is directly affected by the situation in the ground.
bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)I guarantee if Hillary said the same exact thing a bunch of Hillary haters on here would be blasting her.He sounds like a politician to me that his supporters hate
markpkessinger
(8,912 posts)But my support, or lack thereof, for any candidate is not based on a single issue. I think it was a weak statement. The notion that the drone strikes are not already
"carefully evaluated" is a charge even I -- who have been very critical of Obama's drone policy -- am unwilling to make. The problem, of course, is that drones fire missiles -- i.e., targeted bombs, and bombs, by definition, are very blunt instruments that are likely to kill innocent people along with their intended targets.
malthaussen
(18,567 posts)It is not as though the use of drones were not already "carefully evaluated." What this boils down to is an assertion "you can trust me to be more discriminate than the other candidates." So it becomes a matter of faith.
-- Mal
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Sanders proposes to reform a system pretty much invulnerable to reform efforts. The big flaw is the intelligence, which often recommends attacking a "terrorist site" based on shaky or outdated information. Then there is the defense establishment, just looking for something to do, some way to spend more money, something to brag about.
Politicub
(12,328 posts)Paraphrasing, but you get the drift.
markpkessinger
(8,912 posts). . . lies in the notion that ANY of us is entirely free of some measure of hypocrisy when it comes to supporting political candidates. ALL of us are guilty, to a greater or lesser extent, are guilty -- at times at least -- of remaining willfully blind to our own candidate's weaknesses, and overplaying the weakness of the opposing candidate. That is inherent in the give and take of political discourse. So by all means, go ahead and point out each other's hypocrisies if you must. But I might suggest covering up any nearby mirrors as you do it.
Koinos
(2,800 posts)Here we have a one-time conscientious objector applicant defending drones.
Drones are like landmines. They kill countless innocent non-combatants. They should be banned altogether in wartime.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Using drones to circumvent the judicial process and perform remote-control executions, commit signature strikes and double-taps, and to threaten villages 24/7 as psychological warfare is what makes the drone campaigns immoral.
I can see numerous ways to reform the use of drones, and I trust Bernie to do so as President.
Hillary will simply continue and expand upon present practices.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)...including his support for Israel.
This is where I disagree.
But it is unsurprising, drones prevent Black Hawk downs from happening, and the American public views them favorably.