Kill list

[Guest]

The news reports that obama has a kill list for supposed terrorist. American citizens no trial nothing . How do you obama fans feel if this is true. Even New York Times is reporting on this. I dont know how anyone could or would vote for this guy. Impeachment and removal from office.

[Guest]

Sort of makes us no better than the terrorists.

[Guest]

And the righties keep crying.....weak on the war against terrorism.
He's trying to keep us safe. :(

[Guest]

How would you feel if you were on the list and a mistake was made . No proof no trial . POP

[Guest]

The same people (I'm sure Dale was one of them) who wailed about water-boarding suspected terrorists as "torture", and have demanded the prosecution of President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney for "war crimes", are now OK, and even enthusiastic, with the current President sitting at his desk shuffling a deck of cards with names of suspected terrorists and deciding who will receive his wrath that day.

(maybe his supporters figure a raining fiery death from above isn't as abhorrent as a faux drowning)

Charles Krauthammer has a column in the Washington Post where he posits the question of a man elected President who went around the world decrying the ethics of the former President and claiming to have turned a "moral page", but who now has demonstrated to the world that he is judge, jury and executioner of unseen combatants in their country and whatever civilians might be around at the time, at his discretion.

I, like Mr. Krauthammer, really have no big problem with this treatment of enemy combatants hiding in civilian clothes surrounded by civilians complicit or not, but as Mr. Krauthammer says;

"it is to question the moral amnesia of those whose delicate sensibilities were offended by the Bush methods that kept America safe for a decade — and who now embrace Obama’s campaign of assassination by remote control."

We also will never be able to gather information from these fried terrorists.

Barack Obama: Drone Warrior - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/barack-obama-drone-warrior/2012/05/31/gJQAr6zQ5U_story.html)

[Guest]

How would you feel if you were on the list and a mistake was made . No proof no trial . POP

I would probably hide in the deepest, secret underground place,
where I could perfect my underwear, and surgically implanted bombs in peace.

[Guest]

I was confused at first when DDoug introduced the "hit list" because I thought he was referring to the "hit list" Obama and friends comprised for those Americans who have made contributions to Mitt Romney's campaign. Apparently Obama has a broad definition of terrorist which includes underwear bombers and american businessmen financially supporting Romney. For the underwear bombers he sends out drones armed with missiles and for Romney supporters he sends out drones armed with slander and innuuendo. God Bless his heart

[Guest]

The news reports that obama has a kill list for supposed terrorist. American citizens no trial nothing . How do you obama fans feel if this is true. Even New York Times is reporting on this. I dont know how anyone could or would vote for this guy. Impeachment and removal from office.

Is this not the same idea or very close as those decks of cards with enemy targets on them from the Iraq wars? Most-wanted Iraqi playing cards - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most-wanted_Iraqi_playing_cards)

Now, if you are talking about drone warfare, that's another issue. Obama?s Kill List?By Scott Horton (Harper's Magazine) (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2012/05/hbc-90008639)

I do not like the idea of there being collateral damage in war but cannot see how when using bombs you can get around there being some kind. Just look at all the civilians killed in the Allied bombings of German cities in WWII. Strategic bombing during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II)

Do you really believe that a President Romney would not be doing the same thing? Using drones to take out terrorists but also factoring in if there would be any collateral damage of civilians?? Hope he would not sent in troops in these kind of situations instead.

[Guest]

Is this not the same idea or very close as those decks of cards with enemy targets on them from the Iraq wars? Most-wanted Iraqi playing cards - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most-wanted_Iraqi_playing_cards)

Now, if you are talking about drone warfare, that's another issue. Obama?s Kill List?By Scott Horton (Harper's Magazine) (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2012/05/hbc-90008639)

I do not like the idea of there being collateral damage in war but cannot see how when using bombs you can get around there being some kind. Just look at all the civilians killed in the Allied bombings of German cities in WWII. Strategic bombing during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II)

Do you really believe that a President Romney would not be doing the same thing? Using drones to take out terrorists but also factoring in if there would be any collateral damage of civilians?? Hope he would not sent in troops in these kind of situations instead.

Do you have any story of George W. Bush using such a deck of cards, or are you equating Barack H. Obama's use of "terrorist cards" with a neighbor who had one for a "goof"?

You didn't address the "moral question" of Obama's "raining death from above" to the Bush Administration's small use of waterboarding which was condemned to the heavens by the liberal Democrats.

[Guest]

Do you have any story of George W. Bush using such a deck of cards, or are you equating Barack H. Obama's use of "terrorist cards" with a neighbor who had one for a "goof"?

You didn't address the "moral question" of Obama's "raining death from above" to the Bush Administration's small use of waterboarding which was condemned to the heavens by the liberal Democrats.

I see. And you argue that Bush and other US Presidents have not bombed various military targets too in earlier wars and had to take into account collateral damage??

You Republicans are sounding very hypocritical. Waterboarding is also quite different an issue than bombing of civilians when they are intermixed with military targets.

How can any Administration control collateral damage in war?

It does look like an ugly issue-- OpEdNews - Article: Obama and Drone Warfare: Will Americans Speak Out? (http://www.opednews.com/articles/Obama-and-Drone-Warfare-W-by-Medea-Benjamin-120530-288.html)

[Guest]

How would you feel if you were on the list and a mistake was made . No proof no trial . POP

Stuff happens. :(

[Guest]

I see. And you argue that Bush and other US Presidents have not bombed various military targets too in earlier wars and had to take into account collateral damage??

You Republicans are sounding very hypocritical. Waterboarding is also quite different an issue than bombing of civilians when they are intermixed with military targets.

How can any Administration control collateral damage in war?

It does look like an ugly issue-- OpEdNews - Article: Obama and Drone Warfare: Will Americans Speak Out? (http://www.opednews.com/articles/Obama-and-Drone-Warfare-W-by-Medea-Benjamin-120530-288.html)

We're not at war with the countries we are targeting people, in all cases.

It makes a bit of a difference in your defense of Obama's assassination drones.

Now, I already said I don't really have a problem with the air strikes of combatants in the sovereign nations we're not a war with.

I'm only pointing out the moral amnesia of the leftists like you who wailed about the "torture" of the same sort of people you're thrilled to have killed in a fiery reign of terror from pilotless drone assassination machines.

[Guest]

We're not at war with the countries we are targeting people, in all cases.

It makes a bit of a difference in your defense of Obama's assassination drones.

Now, I already said I don't really have a problem with the air strikes of combatants in the sovereign nations we're not a war with.

I'm only pointing out the moral amnesia of the leftists like you who wailed about the "torture" of the same sort of people you're thrilled to have killed in a fiery reign of terror from pilotless drone assassination machines.

Personally, I have no problem either with the air strikes on specific terrorists. I had no problem with waterboarding or other types of interrogation that was not crippling either on suspected terrorists. The sleep deprivation, noise machines, or scaring with dogs was okay and it got some good information.

I don't quite agree with the fact RichieLion says that I am thrilled to have people killed. It is a war, people get killed, I am not thrilled by it but it happens. His wording of "fiery reign of terror" is over the top but that is his way of speaking. No problem.

[Guest]

...I, like Mr. Krauthammer, really have no big problem with this treatment of enemy combatants hiding in civilian clothes surrounded by civilians complicit or not...I'm with you 100%, Richie. My only qualification is that the choice and timing of targets should be further down the org chart than the Oval Office. If the cost of Obama fingering those who will experience the "fiery rain of terror" is that he has to turn in his Nobel Peace Prize, I'll pay the postage.

[Guest]

I'm with you 100%, Richie. My only qualification is that the choice and timing of targets should be further down the org chart than the Oval Office. If the cost of Obama fingering those who will experience the "fiery rain of terror" is that he has to turn in his Nobel Peace Prize, I'll pay the postage.

If the Nobel Committee had any real significance left with it's awarding of so called "Peace Prizes", I would think they'd be reevaluating their premature awarding of this prize to Obama in any case.

But since it's all about politics anyway, it's irrelevant.

[Guest]

We're not at war with the countries we are targeting people, in all cases.

It makes a bit of a difference in your defense of Obama's assassination drones.

Now, I already said I don't really have a problem with the air strikes of combatants in the sovereign nations we're not a war with.

I'm only pointing out the moral amnesia of the leftists like you who wailed about the "torture" of the same sort of people you're thrilled to have killed in a fiery reign of terror from pilotless drone assassination machines.

The war against terrorists is not against sovereign states but against groups of people who use violence and terror for a political end.



Torture is different from bombing. I am against torture of various kinds. Cannot really say that things like waterboarding are all that effective at getting people to tell what they know.

And I would not say that I am thrilled about the taking of any human life.

[Guest]

The war against terrorists is not against sovereign states but against groups of people who use violence and terror for a political end.



Torture is different from bombing. I am against torture of various kinds. Cannot really say that things like waterboarding are all that effective at getting people to tell what they know.

And I would not say that I am thrilled about the taking of any human life.

So are you for the assassination of suspected terrorists anywhere, and in every county in the world; or just in Muslim countries, be they allies or cooperating regimes notwithstanding?

To clarify, you still favor aerial death of suspected terrorist from above, including anyone unfortunate to be near them; and you would condemn the faux drowning "torture" of the same suspected terrorists.

I wonder which procedure the suspected terrorists would prefer.

[Guest]

how did we get from the killing of american citizens with no trial to the killing of terrorists all over the world? did i miss something?

[Guest]

how did we get from the killing of american citizens with no trial to the killing of terrorists all over the world? did i miss something?What American citizen? Are we talking about that guy who was born in America, but serving as a Muslim cleric and organizing terrorist programs in Yemen? The guy we zapped from a drone?

It's arguable, I think, that the guy was an unlawful combatant, so killing him was completely within the authority of the Commander-In-Chief. He was deemed to be an unlawful combatant and as such was killed under the general law of war. An "unlawful combatant" doesn't have the any of the legal rights of a U.S. citizen. An unlawful combatant has an even lower status than an "enemy combatant" who has the protections of the Geneva Convention, but no rights to a civilian trial and can be punished under the authority of a military tribunal.

So, to answer the original question--I'm on board with the military (the Commander-In-Chief) ordering killing U.S. citizens deemed to be unlawful combatants and committing treason outside the borders of the U.S.

[Guest]

Don'tkid yourself, drone attacks allow Obama to continue with his agenda of leading from behind and to continue his plan to reduce our defense making us very vulnerable in the near future. he continues to demonstrate that he is weak, lacking strategy and commitment.

[Guest]

How can any Administration control collateral damage in war?

In this thread this is the most hypocritical statement of all. I wonder how many of your lefty friends would back you up on this if we were talking about a GOP administration?

[Guest]

In this thread this is the most hypocritical statement of all. I wonder how many of your lefty friends would back you up on this if we were talking about a GOP administration?

Did you notice that also? It's amazing what war hawks these "Cindy Sheen protesters" have become since their immaculated one became the commander-in-chief.

[Guest]

In this thread this is the most hypocritical statement of all. I wonder how many of your lefty friends would back you up on this if we were talking about a GOP administration?

Relax, TZ is an advocate of hypocrisy, so long as it supports a leftist agenda.

[Guest]

In this thread this is the most hypocritical statement of all. I wonder how many of your lefty friends would back you up on this if we were talking about a GOP administration?

Have you studied any history at all?? How can you say that there has not been collateral damage in war? This has occurred in every war that the US has been involved in since before there was a United States. You will find killing of civilians-- either deliberately or accidentally-- from the French and Indian War up through now. No President or other kind of Commander-in-Chief can prevent this from happening because in war, terrible stuff happens. Why do we ignore the civilians killed in American wars? - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-do-we-ignore-the-civilians-killed-in-american-wars/2011/12/05/gIQALCO4eP_story.html)

Take the Korean War for instance.

"The wars in Korea and Indochina were extremely deadly. While estimates of Korean War deaths are mainly guesswork, the three-year conflict is widely believed to have taken 3 million lives, about half of them civilians. The sizable civilian toll was partly due to the fact that the country’s population is among the world’s densest and the war’s front lines were often moving." this is from the above Washington Post linked article on civilian deaths is US wars.

There is also this which is horrifying. BBC - History - World Wars: Kill 'em All': The American Military in Korea (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/coldwar/korea_usa_01.shtml)



We are at war with terrorists not with Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, Syria or any other sovereign nation.

My condemnation of torture is that it violates human rights laws and is usually worthless with respect to actually getting good information.

I am also sure that Bush, Romney, or an other Republican President would also hunt anyone involved with 9/11 to the ends of the earth if he knew where this terrorist was.

No one that knows me would ever describe me as a war hawk in any way shape or form. Nor was I ever a supporter of Cindy Sheehan and her protests against the Iraq war. Cindy Sheehan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_Sheehan)

The bumbling hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was a march of folly though and I have taken issue with that war in Iraq.

[Guest]

Apples and oranges arguments. Hard to respond to a such things.

Comparing targeted aerial assassinations in sovereign countries to times this nation was at war is an interesting but flawed thought process.

It's too cruel to waterboard as suspect who won't talk; lets incinerate him instead. Liberals have sure changed in a few short years.

[Guest]

Apples and oranges arguments. Hard to respond to a such things.

Comparing targeted aerial assassinations in sovereign countries to times this nation was at war is an interesting but flawed thought process.

It's too cruel to waterboard as suspect who won't talk; lets incinerate him instead. Liberals have sure changed in a few short years.

You are trying to tell me that Romney will not do the exact same thing with the use of drones rather than sending in troops which would more than likely cost US lives???

It is probably the Pentagon which is behind the tactic of using drones in the first place. This same stance of using drones rather than sending in troops would show up in Romney Administration, too, if there is one. Pentagon Issues Drone War Talking Points | Pakalert Press (http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/05/16/pentagon-issues-drone-war-talking-points/) A Drone-Eat-Drone World | Mother Jones (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/05/drone-warfare-obama-air-force?page=2)

[Guest]

Have you studied any history at all?? How can you say that there has not been collateral damage in war?

Yes I have. I am not saying that there has been no collateral damage, as a matter of fact I think it it part of war. In this day and age of war it is almost a must because they don't wear uniforms and hide in the population to make sure it happens so people who believe like you do see it and make it hard on government to carry out war. Hell, now we arrest or soldiers when it happens.

My response was about how it is wrong when Bush did it or any GOP administration does it and when Obama does it we see statements like yours.

I think that the only two things that Obama has done right in this area IS, get Osama ( carried out plans set in place before he was Pres.) and Drones, (developed, perfected, used and deployed for a long time before him). It is about time we start using some of the same tactics that we have to fight against. I think if you demonstrate to someone that if you plan on assist in hiding the enemy, you are the enemy. Maybe then they will begin to NOT let the enemy live next door. I think your leftist Pres. thought one thing when he was a dope smoking college student and learned another once his head cleared and got into the oval office and sees the truth!

War is nothing like anything else and never will be. People die, and always will. The general public who have never served will never understand, thus will always be used as a political football for what I think is MORE insidious than drones or water boarding. Political gain! No different than what we are fighting against.

[Guest]

You are trying to tell me that Romney will not do the exact same thing with the use of drones rather than sending in troops which would more than likely cost US lives???

It is probably the Pentagon which is behind the tactic of using drones in the first place. This same stance of using drones rather than sending in troops would show up in Romney Administration, too, if there is one.

I don't know what Romney would do. He hasn't spoken about "The Drone King's" uses of the pilotless aircraft in sovereign nations we're not at war with to kill those we suspect of being Islamic terrorists.

If you read the story in the liberal Washington Post, which commented on a story in the liberal New York Times, it describes a scene where Obama shuffled through his options on which terrorist suspect to target, and didn't mention him getting any word from the Pentagon in any part of this article. Of course, you know that because you commented on it previously when we talked about the "deck of cards"

I just like making liberals try to justify their new killer instincts against their simultaneous denunciation of the "faux drowning" of the same target.

[Guest]

Yes I have. I am not saying that there has been no collateral damage, as a matter of fact I think it it part of war. In this day and age of war it is almost a must because they don't wear uniforms and hide in the population to make sure it happens so people who believe like you do see it and make it hard on government to carry out war. Hell, now we arrest or soldiers when it happens.

My response was about how it is wrong when Bush did it or any GOP administration does it and when Obama does it we see statements like yours.

I think that the only two things that Obama has done right in this area IS, get Osama ( carried out plans set in place before he was Pres.) and Drones, (developed, perfected, used and deployed for a long time before him). It is about time we start using some of the same tactics that we have to fight against. I think if you demonstrate to someone that if you plan on assist in hiding the enemy, you are the enemy. Maybe then they will begin to NOT let the enemy live next door. I think your leftist Pres. thought one thing when he was a dope smoking college student and learned another once his head cleared and got into the oval office and sees the truth!

War is nothing like anything else and never will be. People die, and always will. The general public who have never served will never understand, thus will always be used as a political football for what I think is MORE insidious than drones or water boarding. Political gain! No different than what we are fighting against.

What are you talking about with statements like mine? I have made no hypocritical statements. As Commander-in-Chief any President would have hard decisions to make about the war on terror. Many of those made by Bush with respect to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were ill advised. I have taken issue with that war as have many liberals.

[Guest]

I don't know what Romney would do. He hasn't spoken about "The Drone King's" uses of the pilotless aircraft in sovereign nations we're not at war with to kill those we suspect of being Islamic terrorists.

If you read the story in the liberal Washington Post, which commented on a story in the liberal New York Times, it describes a scene where Obama shuffled through his options on which terrorist suspect to target, and didn't mention him getting any word from the Pentagon in any part of this article. Of course, you know that because you commented on it previously when we talked about the "deck of cards"

I just like making liberals try to justify their new killer instincts against their simultaneous denunciation of the "faux drowning" of the same target.

The use of torture is a different issue than the use of drones. It also looks like torture as a method for getting information was not effective and badly damaged our reputation. Did Waterboarding Prevent Terrorism Attacks? - TIME (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1892947,00.html)

[Guest]

What I am talking about is that you seem to think that it is Okay that we have collateral damage or kills NOW that is your guy doing it.

I stand firm on my belief that is it part of war weather or not it is my guy in there or someone I wish was not in there. It is my belief, not a convenient political belief.

Have I misread your post? If so I am sorry.

[Guest]

What I am talking about is that you seem to think that it is Okay that we have collateral damage or kills NOW that is your guy doing it.

I stand firm on my belief that is it part of war weather or not it is my guy in there or someone I wish was not in there. It is my belief, not a convenient political belief.

Have I misread your post? If so I am sorry.

I never said it was OK. It happens though and if you are fighting a war innocent civilians are murdered. And, I have always thought that Bush's war in Afghanistan was necessary to take down the group behind 9/11. Saddam Hussein was not behind 9/11.

[Guest]

The use of torture is a different issue than the use of drones. It also looks like torture as a method for getting information was not effective and badly damaged our reputation. Did Waterboarding Prevent Terrorism Attacks? - TIME (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1892947,00.html)

If we "torture" (waterboarding=make believe drowning) suspected terrorists, that is bad for our nation's reputation.

If we rain down fiery death from above, acting as judge, jury and executioner; killing anyone near our target as a consequence, that is not bad for our nation's reputation.

OK, got it.

[Guest]

If we "torture" (waterboarding=make believe drowning) suspected terrorists, that is bad for our nation's reputation.

If we rain down fiery death from above, acting as judge, jury and executioner; killing anyone near our target as a consequence, that is not bad for our nation's reputation.

OK, got it.

Maybe, we should go back to CIA agents with poisoned umbrellas? But, how would this CIA agent even get close enough to a terrorist cell which probably only allows close family members into its group?

How would you suggest taking down these suspected terrorists, RichieLion?

[Guest]

Don'tkid yourself, drone attacks allow Obama to continue with his agenda of leading from behind and to continue his plan to reduce our defense making us very vulnerable in the near future. he continues to demonstrate that he is weak, lacking strategy and commitment.I'd only ask this question...if the much cheaper drones are more effective militarily than the hugely expensive fleet of nuclear submarines or if special forces are more effective than large land armies, what's wrong with reducing further spending on those types of military assets?

[Guest]

Apples and oranges arguments. Hard to respond to a such things.

Comparing targeted aerial assassinations in sovereign countries to times this nation was at war is an interesting but flawed thought process.

It's too cruel to waterboard as suspect who won't talk; lets incinerate him instead. Liberals have sure changed in a few short years.How do you count the tens of thousands of Iraquis killed by bomb attacks, continuing to this day. They all began after the U.S. invaded Iraq and continue to this day. Are they "collateral damage"? I'd argue that they are.

[Guest]

Maybe, we should go back to CIA agents with poisoned umbrellas? But, how would this CIA agent even get close enough to a terrorist cell which probably only allows close family members into its group?

How would you suggest taking down these suspected terrorists, RichieLion?

Poisoned umbrellas?; watching some James Bond movies are we?

I've already said I don't have a problem with killing enemies everywhere we can. It was always the pinko liberals who cried about war and death and protested in the roads leading to President Bush's family ranch in Texas to lament the death and destruction, and calling him and his supporters war hawks.

I'm just having a good time illustrating how the fake drowning of a terrorist suspect to elicit information, which is called waterboarding, is more egregious in the mind of a Democrat leftist than a sudden and fiery death from above.

I guarantee you, the suspected terrorist would agree with me; that his fiery death is worse.