General Discussion

marions ghost

(19,841 posts)

40. "earned him a drone"

Wed Apr 23, 2014, 08:09 PM

Apr 2014

and did 80 civilians earn a drone?

I think there may be other more effective ways to target Awlaki.

Also I think this sets a very bad precedent for conducting warfare where the American people have NO idea what is being done. Most people do not understand what is happening in Yemen--not like they did in Iraq.
There are plenty of other things wrong with drones, but I can see you're OK with them so...

I am not assuming that legal analysis of the white paper will be "deficient" (ie. not legal)--but I am of the opinion that we should have access to the documents so that we can better know what is going on, who has authorized it, etc. If we don't understand what's happening, how can we object? So the NYT winning on this is good. In this nasty drone business all we are doing is creating more terrorists while we ourselves terrorize innocent people. I'm sick of it. This is not an honorable way to do this.

Consider that a lot of things that are technically legal are basically immoral and just plain wrong. I don't think I have to give you examples. But you know what I mean.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

95 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

So did US drones really kill 60 plus people in Yemen? [View all] malaise Apr 2014 OP

"Turns out I'm really good at killing people." -Obama DesMoinesDem Apr 2014 #1

He's not in Bushco's league malaise Apr 2014 #4

Apparently yes marions ghost Apr 2014 #2

That's very good news malaise Apr 2014 #3

This is a war we are waging on Yemen marions ghost Apr 2014 #5

This is madness malaise Apr 2014 #6

What is this "law" of which you speak? Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #19

I thnk you are incorrect--you assume that the legal analysis of the white paper will somehow msanthrope Apr 2014 #21

"earned him a drone" marions ghost Apr 2014 #40

Really? Tell us exactly how you would have targeted Awlaki? nt msanthrope Apr 2014 #42

Really? marions ghost Apr 2014 #46

Kindly tell us the specific strategy you would have used for Awlaki. Why not answer the question?nt msanthrope Apr 2014 #53

Because marions ghost Apr 2014 #54

If everyone knows there was another way to get Awlaki, then why not simply msanthrope Apr 2014 #56

You like drones marions ghost Apr 2014 #61

I wish drones had been on the table at Tora Bora. Might have saved us the whole Iraq war. msanthrope Apr 2014 #62

"Saved us the whole Iraq War..." marions ghost Apr 2014 #63

Precisely--I agree with you. That's why drones were not used by Bush at Tora Bora. Far too msanthrope Apr 2014 #64

Oh yeah drones are the answer marions ghost Apr 2014 #66

So let me also add the question..... marions ghost Apr 2014 #67

Trust? Hardly...but AQAP must be dealt with. nt msanthrope Apr 2014 #68

And so marions ghost Apr 2014 #69

I do care how. I think that the man who helped send PETN bombs to the US, msanthrope Apr 2014 #70

Did his son marions ghost Apr 2014 #72

His son? No. But he wasn't the target of that operation. Al-Banna was. nt msanthrope Apr 2014 #73

Doesn't matter. The son was innocent collateral damage. marions ghost Apr 2014 #74

Notice you did not nor will not get an answer treestar Apr 2014 #87

I never will...which is why very different people are in charge of things. nt msanthrope Apr 2014 #89

Good to know. MannyGoldstein Apr 2014 #77

The same court that signed off on the death of Osama bin Laden. nt msanthrope Apr 2014 #79

I don't believe any court signed of on executing bin Laden. MannyGoldstein Apr 2014 #80

Now you're catching on. You have a very peculiar mindview...why do you msanthrope Apr 2014 #81

Americans don't have full Constitutional rights? MannyGoldstein Apr 2014 #82

You are evading my question. Why can't you answer it? nt msanthrope Apr 2014 #83

LOL MannyGoldstein Apr 2014 #84

Why do you think Osama Bin Laden did not get due process? nt msanthrope Apr 2014 #85

I answered your question, please show courtesy and answer mine MannyGoldstein Apr 2014 #86

Actually, you didn't answer my question...so I'll repeat it... msanthrope Apr 2014 #88

I assume if the President makes the distinction, there is one MannyGoldstein Apr 2014 #90

Well, you still aren't answering my question, Manny. Why? msanthrope Apr 2014 #91

I am absolutely answering your question MannyGoldstein Apr 2014 #92

No...not only haven't you answered my question, you also have misunderstood msanthrope Apr 2014 #93

So you *are* claiming that the President can execute any citizen at will? nt MannyGoldstein Apr 2014 #94

Not "any" person and not "at will." (I think restricting this discussion to 'citizens' is both msanthrope Apr 2014 #95

wow, missed this G_j Apr 2014 #25

OK marions ghost Apr 2014 #41

If it were so justified, why would the Administration need to keep these killings so secret? Supersedeas Apr 2014 #58

Right marions ghost Apr 2014 #60

The proper term for people killed in a drone strike is "suspected militants". n/t hughee99 Apr 2014 #7

That doesn't work for me malaise Apr 2014 #13

Doesn't work for me either... hughee99 Apr 2014 #14

When we declared war on them. nt msanthrope Apr 2014 #22

that was easy.. G_j Apr 2014 #26

Well, yes, actually. That's kind of the point of war. Recursion Apr 2014 #31

The 2001 AUMF belongs in the dictionary under the definition of "vague". bullwinkle428 Apr 2014 #32

Take drones out of the mental image here. What if it were a platoon of Marines? Recursion Apr 2014 #33

Yes. nt msanthrope Apr 2014 #36

We declared war on who? Militants? hughee99 Apr 2014 #34

It was in all the papers. On September 18, 2001, the AUMF authorizing action msanthrope Apr 2014 #35

I never said it wasn't in accordance with US law, just that it isn't right. hughee99 Apr 2014 #37

Well, no--it's not a blank check. We still needed another AUMF to get into Iraq, and various other msanthrope Apr 2014 #38

I don't see anything about AQ in the text. hughee99 Apr 2014 #39

AQ isn't mentioned in the text. Do you dispute they caused 9/11? nt msanthrope Apr 2014 #43

Of course not, but the bill is written hughee99 Apr 2014 #44

Nope. nt msanthrope Apr 2014 #45

It gets worse, this barely registered a peep from most folks: The Straight Story Apr 2014 #8

You will never see it coming...yuck yuck...ha ha Jesus Malverde Apr 2014 #9

AND: Hillary Clinton on Gaddafi: "We came, We saw, He died"---chuckle, chuckle, chuckle KoKo Apr 2014 #24

12 seconds that defined her term as Secretary of State Jesus Malverde Apr 2014 #27

What a fucking ghoul RandiFan1290 Apr 2014 #48

Policy, malaise: Jefferson23 Apr 2014 #10

Time to show the bodies malaise Apr 2014 #11

They ARE human beings, I am not sure they "count" to those that are unconcerned with their death Dragonfli Apr 2014 #12

Total numbers so far -- how many Americans know this? marions ghost Apr 2014 #15

This has to stop malaise Apr 2014 #16

Yes it has to stop marions ghost Apr 2014 #17

Here's a story about piles of bodies that gets even less attention seveneyes Apr 2014 #18

The pile of bodies in Iraq were also ignored malaise Apr 2014 #23

C'mon. Those were peace bombs from a Democrat. woo me with science Apr 2014 #20

From HRW Daily Brief, April 23, 2014 Jefferson23 Apr 2014 #28

International Law appears to be whatever the West says it is at any given moment malaise Apr 2014 #29

A troubling precedent marions ghost Apr 2014 #51

From your link malaise Apr 2014 #52

yep the weasel language marions ghost Apr 2014 #55

Which is why although I have no love for Putin malaise Apr 2014 #57

As I understand it, the people we are droning in Yemen Jesus Malverde Apr 2014 #30

Good Morning America -- marions ghost Apr 2014 #47

Thanks for this malaise Apr 2014 #49

Thanks for your OP marions ghost Apr 2014 #50

If the goal is to create more terrorists, then go ahead and support these drone attacks. Jefferson23 Apr 2014 #59

Appeals Court Rules Government Can't Have It Both Ways on Targeted Killing Jefferson23 Apr 2014 #65

* snip Have courts ignored presidential overreach? Jefferson23 Apr 2014 #71

Frightening indeed malaise Apr 2014 #76

Exactly, the policy is similar to a gigantic Petri dish, creating more terror, not ending it. Jefferson23 Apr 2014 #78

It's all legal. Octafish Apr 2014 #75