So, in order to clear up the confusion let me just state the three biggest problems with how we are using the drone program.
1. We have used drones to execute U.S. civilians without a trial. In the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, the government seems to be indicating he was a really important operational leader for al-Qaeda. Their evidence for that -- nothing. At least nothing they have presented to the public or any other branch of government. The old saying is that you could indict a ham sandwich, but apparently they couldn't indict Awlaki.
Does that mean our government couldn't produce any evidence at all on this supposed terrorist mastermind, or has such disdain for any other branch of government that they think it's beneath them to show a shred of evidence to a court before they order the execution of a U.S. citizen?
In the case of the other two U.S. citizens who were killed, including Awlaki's 16 year-old son who was struck in another bombing, the government refuses to say whether they meant to kill those citizens or if it was an accident. Shouldn't we at least know if assassinations of U.S. citizens are done on purpose or accidentally (by the all-knowing, all-wise executive branch)?
Finally, on this note, what a lot of the senators are frustrated by is that even the legal memos outlining why they think they have the right to do these extra-judicial killings are secret. Great, we're using secret law that justifies why the executive gets to execute citizens without any due process (and yes, due process is judicial process Eric Holder).
If you're not bothered by any of this, you should retake your civics class from high school because apparently you missed the whole point of this country, and really, all of western civilization.
2. Most of the drone strikes are signature strikes where we have no idea who we're killing. Really, you're in favor of this? This is so outlandishly immoral that it seems unbelievable. But the New York Times, among many other outlets, has confirmed that in fact we are dropping bombs from drones based on signature activity down below without having any idea who we are killing specifically.
This is why we sometimes bomb weddings. People in Afghanistan and Pakistan often bring weapons to weddings and they fire the guns in the air to celebrate. We see the "signature" of terrorists because there are many guns in the area and obliterate the entire wedding party. If you're comfortable with this, there's some chance you're a monster.
3. We often do double taps where we kill first-responders and the people trying to help the wounded. If you weren't a monster for agreeing with the above strategy, you certainly are if you agree with this one. Plus, a war criminal. This is one of the biggest war crimes there is. The other people who use this strategy often: al-Qaeda.
So, now do you really support these policies? Of course not, the great majority of Americans have no idea what we're doing with these drones. They think we're only targeting high level terrorists. In reality, only 2 percent of the strikes have hit high level al-Qaeda figures. That's why it's so important to shine a light on this issue.
Of course, there is one other thing, which is that most Democrats cannot get themselves to believe that the beloved Barack Obama would authorize things like this, so they just turn a deaf ear to it or try to make some sort of comical excuse for it. The reality is that he does do these things and that's why progressives who are paying attention have been so disgruntled with him. It's not like we didn't like the guy or vote for the guy; we're not like the conservatives who have Obama Derangement Syndrome and think he's a Muslim from another planet and oppose everything he does. No, we oppose him on this because it is clearly and unequivocally wrong.
Now you know. What you do with this information going forward is your own moral choice. If you can live with yourself by agreeing to these policies, then that's who you are. But if how we use these drones bothers you, then you have a moral responsibility to oppose these policies and let the president know, no matter who's team he's on.
You Can Watch The Young Turks Here
Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CenkUygur
In this description on how the drones are being used and why describes that our government isnt really doing their jobs. They may think tht they are making the right decisons and the right people for the right reason....well thats what they want us to beleive, And in all honesty after putting alot of thought into it and doing some research i am against the random use of drones being used to kill american citizens I honestly think if the government has any thought of someone being a teorist or even causing a problem tryn that could put america into danger or any threat, I think tht the government has enough fire power and enough people so tht they could go into people's homes and figure it out from there even if its putting them into an enterment camp. idk maybe im just cruel lol but I think tht if the government is so worried then they should stop letting people into our contry and quit giving them same rights tht we have deport them if their so worried about it but i think the government is doing all of this just for shits and giggles. o'well we live in a twisted society and there is really anything tht we can do unless there is a big enough patition filled out and given to the presidant himself but i doubt anyone will take the time or even have the money to travel around and get a large enough amount of people to sign it.
now this is the presidents argument on why he and the government have the right to use drones to attack american citizens on United States soil. in my oppinion i think its bullshit and tht Hiialry Clinton WOULD do a better job in the office in replace of obamma.
Never wanted him as president.
(CNN) -- Since 9/11, the United States has increasingly relied on drones to kill its enemies and to chip away at terrorism around the globe. Drone warfare has always been controversial. But it became virtually sensational during the heated discussion over John Brennan's nomination to be CIA chief.
Responding to a question stemming from that discussion, Attorney General Eric Holder said this week that he wouldn't rule out the possibility of a drone strike against Americans on U.S. soil. But he said the administration wasn't planning on such a strike and would use the option only under extreme circumstances.
Holder futher clarified the administration's stance Thursday with a brief letter to Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, who had staged a 13-hour filibuster of Brennan's confirmation.
"It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: 'Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?' " Holder wrote. "The answer to that question is no."
CNN Explains: Drones
Is it okay for U.S. to target citizens?
Rand Paul: I'm happy with WH letter
Did pilot spot a drone at JFK?
That satisfied Paul, who had ended his filibuster and allowed Brennan's confirmation to go on. But it hasn't ended the discussion about the use of drones over the United States.
What's President Obama's argument?
For some time, the administration has fervently defended the drone program in general, boasting that it has helped decimate al Qaeda and saved the lives of troops that might otherwise be involved in ground attacks.
The United States has carried out 349 "CIA drone strikes" in Pakistan and 61 in Yemen, according to Washington-based nonpartisan think tank The New America Foundation.
When it comes to drone strikes in Indiana or New York, the administration insists the unmanned machines could be used when an imminent threat to the United States is clear. Drone strikes on U.S. soil could be necessary when capture isn't feasible, the administration says. Dealing with a 9/11 or a Pearl Harbor-style attack -- or one that seems very likely -- could justify a domestic drone strike, Holder said.
What law or precedent might support their argument?
CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said there is no law on drone strikes. "Police officers use weapons on American citizens all the time," he said. "This is just another weapon."
The Supreme Court has held that the military may constitutionally use force against a U.S. citizen who is a part of enemy forces. But that's not in the United States.
Again, there is other documentation about drone use against U.S. citizens abroad. Consider a Justice Department memo, given to select members of Congress last year, that says the U.S. government can use lethal force against American citizens overseas who are operational leaders of al Qaeda or its affiliates.
One high-profile example of a U.S. citizen killed in a strike overseas is Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical cleric born and educated in the United States. A drone killed him in Yemen in 2011.
Who are the most vocal opponents?
The pushback against the administration has united unlikely bedfellows.
Republicans and Democrats are both dubious of drones hovering over Americans.
But while Paul stopped the Senate's work cold to express his displeasure, the GOP isn't standing as one over anti-terrorism tactics. Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham assailed Paul's filibuster.
"All I can say is that I don't think that what happened yesterday is helpful to the American people," McCain, R-Arizona, said on the Senate floor Thursday.
At one point in his filibuster, Paul said there would be nothing stopping the United States from dropping a missile on Jane Fonda, who actively protested the Vietnam War in the 1970s.
McCain, who admitted that Fonda wasn't his "favorite American," was peeved by Paul's argument.
"Somehow to allege that the United States of America -- our government -- will drop a drone Hellfire missile on Jane Fonda, that brings the conversation from a serious discussion about U.S. policy to the realm of the ridiculous," he sniped.
An American Civil Liberties Union lawyer called Obama the "judge, jury and executioner" in the matter, and said he agreed with Paul.
What are the political overtones here?
The debate, in a larger way, is about the struggle between the executive and legislative branches and which wields authority in such matters.
There are also questions about how the issue might affect the next presidential election, when Obama's two terms will be up. Paul has hinted that he may run in 2016. The next president will probably, at least until challenged, assume the same authority Obama has regarding drone strikes.
But Micah Zenko with the Council on Foreign Relations, an expert on drones and terrorism, cautions against too many predictions.
"This is such a fast-moving issue, and many parts are still being decided," he said.
"But I would add that if you look at how the topic played out in the last election, there was one question on drones in the third debate, and both candidates thought about it for 10 seconds and agreed they were great," he said. "Maybe next time, it will take 20 seconds before they say that."
What's the larger issue at stake?
Drones are becoming more common in general, and technology cannot be stopped, experts say. Controlling the technology and its capabilities will be incredibly difficult. So that will make the idea of transparency even more important.
There has been "a means of dealing with imminent threat in this country -- it's the police, a time-honored way of dealing with the guy who comes into Congress with a grenade launcher," said Tom Junod, an Esquire magazine writer who has written about Obama and the drone program. "We wouldn't be talking about this if we didn't suddenly have this technology ability of taking out anybody we wish.
"It's the technology that has extended the arm of the law and executive attention."
The question for Americans is how far they want the president's arm to reach.
can we call a revote on presidentcy? if so what do we have to do?
No comments:
Post a Comment