Are drone strikes really as “legal,” “ethical,” and “wise” as the White House says?
Jay Carney, the chief spokesman for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize Winner, wants you to know that President Barack Obama’s controversial use of drones isn’t just sort-of borderline defensible. …
How much care does the White House take in assessing who it wants to bomb (often in countries with which the U.S. is not officially at war)? So much care that it doesn’t feel a need to get legal authorization from either the judicial or legislative branches of the federal government. …
What else is in the news today regarding the most transparent administration in history? A report documenting that 54 countries around the globe have played along with the CIA when it comes to torturing suspects in such a way that the U.S. can pretend it doesn’t do that sort of thing anymore.
There is a darkly comic aspect to this, I suppose: Here’s a president who once taught classes in constitutional law and swore up and down that America doesn’t torture, that he was against “dumb wars” waged by his predecessors, that he was more transparent than a glass of triple-filtered water, and who won a goddamned Nobel Peace Prize! And he turns out to be not just a little iffy when it comes to being constrained in his willingness to break all sorts of rules but downright godawful.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
No . Short and sweet .
Lucano on February 5, 2013 at 10:44 PM
Let’s face it, drones are great. 90% of our military spending should be drones and the like. You just don’t want the enemy to be in control of them, and therein lies the problem with Obama at the controls.
Buddahpundit on February 5, 2013 at 10:49 PM
You’ve got to love the insane left:
- Afghan terrorists in Afghanistan have to be Mirandized (as if the US Constitution governs the entire universe and the Afghan terrorists have any rights).
- It is illegal and immoral for the US to assassinate foreigners in foreign lands (if anyone who likes America happens to be in the White House).
- Pouring water on the faces of admitted terrorists off of US sovereign territory is illegal, immoral, and unthinkably evil.
- But it’s cool to snuff out people holding American citizenship the minute they step off of US sovereign territory, so long as an ineligible third-world leftist with an 84 IQ is occupying the White House.
Yep. Consistency. It’s what the left has for dinner with their dog entree.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 5, 2013 at 11:00 PM
Comrade Obama and his fellow travelers think that assassinating “alleged” terrorists, and any innocents that happened to be standing near them, is more “legal,” “ethical,” and “wise” — and more humane — than capturing them, incarcerating them in Gitmo, and giving them some form of due process that ends in the eventual release of most of them. Not to mention we might actually learn something from them about their organizations and what they have planned. Can’t have that.
There’s just too much risk one of two of them might get turned upside down on occasion and have a few drops of water poured down their noses. The temptation to try to coerce some info from them would be too great for those sadistic mouth breathing knuckle dragging Neanderthals we have running Gitmo. Much better to just kill them where they stand when we find them, and everyone around them.
farsighted on February 5, 2013 at 11:01 PM
Sleazy Eric Holder’s and Ogabe’s Just-Us Department consider their murders of 300+ Mexicans and several border patrol agents as legal and ethical so whacking a few more innocents is simply collateral damage for The Reich on the Potomac to attain entitled Destiny.
viking01 on February 5, 2013 at 11:32 PM
Oh fer crissakes…Are we Code Pink now…?
Who will be the first to break out the vagina suit?
As far as I’m concerned Obama or any president can snuff out some jihadi traitor any time.
Let’s stop pretending he will kill Rush Limbaugh or Charles Krauthammer.
NeoKong on February 5, 2013 at 11:34 PM
What are we…Code Pink now…?
Since when do we not not want to drop a bomb on some turncoat traitor plotting against America?
Let’s stop pretending this will be aimed at Obama’s political opponents.
NeoKong on February 5, 2013 at 11:51 PM
I have no problems with taking out any enemy off of our territory. The Constitution does not extend past our sovereign territory. But, I don’t rail against assassinations and I don’t try to jail Americans who pour water on the faces of admitted terrorists. I don’t Mirandize Afghan terrorists and I don’t expose CIA interrogators to terrorists. Etc. And I don’t like having America-haters running the Executive branch, especially not ineligible ones who make a mockery of our Constitution on our land.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 6, 2013 at 12:00 AM
Chris Kyle memorial scheduled for Cowboys Stadium Feb. 11
Suck it, Paultards.
Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 2:37 AM
Oops. Posted to wrong thread, accidentally.
Still stand 100% behind the original sentiment, however.
Kent18 on February 6, 2013 at 2:40 AM
Yes. And if you don’t like it you will get drone-striked.
Bishop on February 6, 2013 at 7:55 AM
When a Republican becomes President again watch how the liberals and Democrats will demand the end of drone strikes.
Democrats believe in nothing but being in power.
albill on February 6, 2013 at 9:08 AM
And we’re still behind the sentiment that you should wake up in the middle of Afcrapistan naked and with anti-Mohammed cartoons tattooed all over your body.
Prayers for Kyle’s family, who’s shoes you aren’t worthy to shine with your tongue.
MelonCollie on February 6, 2013 at 9:55 AM
I support the strikes I know about: overseas, targeted on terrorists like Al Qaeda, Al Awlaki for instance. I don’t like the idea that this power extends within the U.S. I’d have to judge in on a case by case basis. You can’t be transparent and give full “due process” in counterterrorism, but it ought to be reviewable and accountable, i.e. if they were found to have targeted innocent people, it should be an impeachable offense.
I must say that I’m a lot less comfortable with Obama and his Chicago-style politics being given this power than I was with Bush.
flataffect on February 6, 2013 at 10:06 AM
I do not have a problem with drone strikes and taking out US citizens abroad who are aiding and abetting terrorism.
It’s the hypocrisy of Comrade O and the principle of the thing. Comrade O lectured us all about how inhumane and un-American Gitmo is/was and how horrible some detainees were treated. They need trials in US courts, he said.
Yet he is not even trying to capture some of the people he is assassinating with drones. Much less afford them any kind of due process.
The bar for ordering the assassination of a US citizens overseas should be pretty high. At a minimum the President and the principles on his National Security Council should have to formally sign off on it and be held directly accountable, with Legislative oversight.
farsighted on February 6, 2013 at 10:22 AM
Your post only came through twice. Can you post it a few more times?
We don’t have to “pretend”. After all, Dear Leader’s own Vice President has already called Republicans “terrorists”, and so have many other prominent Democrats.
Del Dolemonte on February 6, 2013 at 10:28 AM