Fed up by Glenn Greenwald's criticism, drone supporters unearth 2005 post

[ProSense]

47. So

"They can't counter Greenwald's argument so they are trying to delegitimize him. A lot of Union Dems held/hold the view Greenwald posited back in 2005 and if Latinos voted 71% for R's I'm sure that argument would be made a whole lot more on DU. "

...you've decided to smear unknow union Dems to make your nonsensical argument? I mean, are you saying it's racist, but it's OK because some other people thought the same thing?

Greenwald ins't interested in debate. His spends a lot of time calling out Obama supporters. Frankly, I think the people distorting the debate are the unprincipled ones. I mean, just because they've put themselves on a pedestal to denounce everyone engaged in the debate who doesn't agree with them on one aspect of it or another, doesn't make them principled. It simply means they have an opinion.

The bullshit name calling is for lack of an argument and an unwillingness to participate in the debate. It's all about denouncing, not offering solutions, not thinking about the real issues.

I posted this in another thread.

The rhetoric is to avoid the real debate. It includes everything from portraying Obama as just like Bush only better at it to screaming that Obama is going to kill Americans. If you don't agree with the rhetoric, you're immoral. Yet organizations like the ACLU focus on the issue of trying to sort out the process, and even they will admit that there are instances where lethal force is justified. The issue is who gets to define those instances.

The issue is real and it's not going away. In 2002, another U.S. citizen was killed in Yemen, though it was originally stated that he was not the target.

Kamal Derwish (also Ahmed Hijazi) was an American citizen killed by the CIA as part of a covert targeted killing mission in Yemen on November 5, 2002. The CIA used an RQ-1 Predator drone to shoot a Hellfire missile, destroying the vehicle in which he was driving with five others.[1]

Derwish had been closely linked to the growing religious fundamentalism of the Lackawanna Six, a group of Muslim-Americans who had attended lectures in his apartment near Buffalo, New York.[2][3]

That an American citizen had been killed by the CIA without trial drew criticism.[4] American authorities quickly back-pedaled on their stories celebrating the death of Derwish, instead noting they had been unaware he was in the car which they said had been targeted for its other occupants, including Abu Ali al-Harithi, believed to have played some role in the USS Cole bombing.[4]

<...>

On November 3, 2002, Derwish and al-Harithi were part of a convoy of vehicles moving through the Yemeni desert trying to meet someone, unaware that their contact was cooperating with US forces to lure them into a trap. As their driver spoke on satellite phone, trying to figure out why the two parties couldn't see each other if they were both at the rendezvous point, a Predator drone launched a Hellfire missile, killing everybody in the vehicle. CIA officers in Djibouti had received clearance for the attack from director George Tenet.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamal_Derwish

Human Rights Watch issued this statement about the target:

The line between war and law enforcement gained importance as the U.S. government extended its military efforts against terrorism outside of Afghanistan and Pakistan. In November, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency used a missile to kill Qaid Salim Sinan al-Harethi, an alleged senior al-Qaeda official, and five companions as they were driving in a remote and lawless area of Yemen controlled by tribal chiefs. Washington accused al-Harethi of masterminding the October 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole which had killed seventeen sailors. Based on the limited information available, Human Rights Watch did not criticize the attack on al-Harethi as an extra-judicial execution because his alleged al-Qaeda role arguably made him a combatant, the government apparently lacked control over the area in question, and there evidently was no reasonable law enforcement alternative. Indeed, eighteen Yemeni soldiers had reportedly been killed in a prior attempt to arrest al-Harethi. However, the U.S. government made no public effort to justify this use of its war powers or to articulate the legal limits to such powers. It is Human Rights Watch's position that even someone who might be classified as an enemy combatant should not be subject to military attack when reasonable law enforcement means are available. The failure to respect this principle would risk creating a huge loophole in due process protections worldwide. It would leave everyone open to being summarily killed anyplace in the world upon the unilateral determination by the United States (or, as the approach is inevitably emulated, by any other government) that he or she is an enemy combatant.

http://www.hrw.org/legacy/wr2k3/introduction.html

It reiterates the conditions for action ("al-Qaeda role," "no control over area" and "no reasonable law enforcement alternative," but it also stresses the risk of a slippery slope, which is the argument that claims: Even if you trust Obama, would you trust the next Republican President?

Are organizations like Human Rights Watch "unprincipled hacks" for offering that position?

Remembering Bush, accurately
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022343435