The Bush administration's abuses of our need for protection has driven us insane.

[phleshdef]

I certainly don't agree with the way the Obama administration has handled all of our national security issues and I definately wish that ending the occupation in Afghanistan could be moved on a lot sooner than its going to be. But it seems to me that some of us have been driven so angry by the blatant abuses the Bush administration committed in the name of keeping us safe that we are no longer thinking clearly about ANYTHING related to the idea of keeping us safe.

Before the neoconservative movement hijacked the tragedy of 9/11 for their own agenda and the Republican party reduced the notion of patriotism to a cheap, chest beating bumper sticker slogan, I really doubt that many would bat an eye at the government authorizing the use of deadly force against anyone guilty of plotting serious terrorist attacks. If this person were within our own borders and were trying to evade apprehension, our domestic law enforcement agencies are and should be able to do whatever they need in order to see that justice is served. Just because that person isn't within our borders doesn't mean we should just forget about them and hope that they decide to stumble back into the country so that we can then deal with them.

Personally, I wish this kind of approach had been used in the case of Osama Bin Laden, instead of making it a military matter and thus engaging in a long, often poorly strategized war.

And I know some will not like the Osama Bin Laden comparison because Bin Laden wasn't an American citizen. But then how can we make the argument that we should treat non-American born people suspected as terrorists with the same rights as Americans when we do apprehend them peacefully (which of course we should) but yet try to flip that standard the other way whenever we are making the decision as to what level of force is appropriate when confronted with American born terrorist suspects who are engaging in the same types of activities? On one hand, we say that special punishments should not be reserved for non-American enemies but then say that special care should be taken for American enemies. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Its not just this issue where I see this problem. It seems anything the Obama administration does that is related to viable national security concerns is automatically dubbed as a continuation of Bush policies and somehow contrary to our progressive values. That simply is not the case. There are some things that any administration SHOULD do when it comes to national security.

Bush and his neoconservative buddies went way too far and abused a lot of power. But that doesn't make every aggressive national security action a reason to cry foul.

[Captain Hilts]

1. Violent crime has plummeted, yet more people feel the 'need' to carry concealed weapons. nt

[Clio the Leo]

2. Seriously! The dude is ON A PLANE right now....

... on his way to sign a nuclear arms treaty.

And yet here we are going ........ AHHHHHHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAH!!!!! .... about something that hasn't even happened.

It's flippin' hilarious.

[phleshdef]

3. He has taken the generally progressive side on nuclear weapons, muslim world relations and Israel.

His administration has acted in the exact opposite fashion as the Bush administration has on a great number of things.

[treestar]

4. Great post

We should not have to let someone get away with plotting terrorist attacks against us just because they are citizens of the U.S.

Bush may have abused the notion, but there is still a concept of national security.

[neverforget]

5. Declare an American citizen a terrorist and then you can kill them

without a messy trial.

[phleshdef]

6. Or just not declare them a terrorist and shoot them anyway if they resist arrest and try to flee.

You are not giving the situation an honest assessment at all.

[treestar]

7. That's not what is happening here.

[neverforget]

11. What is happening? My problem with this is the abuse that can and probably

will happen down the road.

[phleshdef]

13. If this were actually an abuse and actually set any real precedent, you would have reason to worry.

But its not an abuse and it doesn't actually set any real precedent. The whole issue is being blown out of proportion and being made into something that its not.

[Cleobulus]

17. Where are you assurances of that?

I see Obama legitimizing the use of death squads here, at least previous Presidents had the wherewithal to keep their use of such secret.

[phleshdef]

18. This isn't the "use of a death squad". You might as well be talking about death panels.

What you are saying is THAT ridiculous.

[Cleobulus]

20. Why, Presidents in the past have used them before.

Unlike death panels, which were made up by a single deluded mind.

[boppers]

31. It depends on how you're defining "death squad".

As far as Presidents trained in killing, and advocating the use of killing to accomplish goals, that goes back to 1776.

[Cleobulus]

33. Well, Nicaragua, Chile, Cambodia, Iran...

you know, the nice little boys and girls Presidents have funded, usually to fight "Communism" however they defined it that week. Please, don't insult my intelligence.

[boppers]

36. I wasn't aware your intelligence was easily insulted. My apologies.

From the examples you provided, you seem to be equating funding para-military "rebel groups" that used murder as a means of political control, and a presidential directive that an individual can be targeted for official military and intelligence action.

Are they similar things to you?

[Cleobulus]

37. Considering that the CIA funded and trained them, usually with a presidential knowledge...

and even had some of them actively participate in said actions, yes, it is similar. The difference is that it was more covert back then.

[boppers]

38. lol, well, it's more transparent now

So, there's that.

[tekisui]

41. It is precedent. I may be abuse.

[boppers]

15. History's a pretty good place to look for lessons.

A single individual or small group being targeted is one thing, but it's no Trail of Tears or Utah War.

[Cleobulus]

28. No, but it could be like Iran-Contra, Chile, Cambodia, or Laos...

hmm, proxy wars, death squads and mass murder, something for America to be proud of! :eyes:

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[phleshdef]

9. There is nothing hawkish in what I said.

Try reading again... maybe with your attention span turned on and your knee jerk talking points turned off.

[DebbieCDC]

10. "authorizing the use of deadly force against anyone guilty of plotting serious terrorist attacks"

Your words -- now, what court found this person guilty of anything?

Or are you willing to accept the say-so of ANY president that executive authority is the sole determiner of guilt or innocence?

That's some knee-jerk reaction you have -- my president right or wrong.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Patchuli]

14. You have to remember however

that Bush was not interested in catching Bin Laden. He is/was part of their 'family.'

"Personally, I wish this kind of approach had been used in the case of Osama Bin Laden, instead of making it a military matter and thus engaging in a long, often poorly strategized war."

[Cleobulus]

16. So we are to destroy the Judicial system for safety?

This is horrendous, even after 9/11/01, I wanted, more than anything else, for us to capture Osama bin Laden, put him on trial, and let him rot in jail for the rest of his life. Bush, going off half cocked and proclaiming a "War on Terror" which was bullshit then, and bullshit now, completely failed in doing that.

We are either a nation of laws, or a nation run on the whims of those in power, there is no in between on this. This is not a country I want to live in if it behaves like too many other authoritarian, autocratic, regimes.

[phleshdef]

19. What a bunch of over the top mischaracterization.

Nothing in this has shown to violate any laws. Even the articles reporting this back up that its within law.

[Cleobulus]

21. First off, I find the law in question to be idiotic, but that's neither here nor there...

the "War on Terror" is and always was a farce, a ridiculous farce that does nothing but increase enmity against the U.S. worldwide and increases the risks to our National Security.

[grahamhgreen]

22. What he said.

[Cleobulus]

23. I'm simply appalled at how many people will throw out due process...

because they a fucking cowards.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cleobulus]

25. How does it not stand in the way of due process?

Will this guy ever get a trial, or just a bullet in the head?

The way people like you are arguing, you would prefer the bullet, and forget the trial.

[phleshdef]

26. The authorization was to CAPTURE or if that isn't possible, then kill.

If he doesn't resist capture, then yea he can get a trial. If he does, then he will meet the same fate EVERY OTHER DANGEROUS CRIMINAL SUSPECT RISKS MEETING IF THEY RESIST.

I would prefer no one be killed for anything. But I do not oppose nor have I ever opposed allowing for it as long as laws are followed and the public is aware of whats going on. So far, all that criteria seems to be being met.

[Cleobulus]

27. In that case why didn't Obama just ask for a federal warrant for the guy's arrest?

To be enforced through extradition treaties, coordinated with Interpol, the FBI's overseas offices, and yes, even the Military. Why the inflammatory rhetoric?

[boppers]

29. Obama should file a Better Business Bureau complaint, too!

Yeah. Yemeni authorities would totally care if we would just write a strongly worded letter!

:sarcasm:

[Cleobulus]

30. Its called diplomacy, I know its passe, and we prefer to blow things up before we even...

attempt it, after all blowing shit up worked so well in getting Osama bin Laden, didn't it? :eyes:

[boppers]

32. Diplomacy requires two sides.

It's Yemen.

Ask Jürgen Chrobog about diplomacy there.

[Cleobulus]

34. Is diplomacy even being attempted, and no, not like how Bush tried...

it with the Taliban before invasion, hell, that hardly counts. Are you saying we can have no leverage in Yemen? I find that hard to believe.

[boppers]

35. We have more leverage with Kim Jong Il.

The country, is, well....
...there's not much else to compare them to.

They're pretty much a "more Arabic kind of Somalia".

[tekisui]

42. And, that is how the terrorists win.

Through our own induced fear, we willing erode our civil liberties.

[lunatica]

39. Treason is a capital offense, punishable by death

This is not a comfortably black or white issue. It's actually a dilemma with no pat right or wrong answer. A good question is, when does being a traitor to your country become a crime so imminent that your country must stop you in the name of national security?

I wish it were as clear cut as I'd like it to be. But it isn't. And that doesn't mean I'm taking the official line as the irrefutable truth based on incontrovertible facts. If we had an extradition treaty with Yemen it would be a different story. These treaties are why diplomacy is so vital to national security, and hopefully Yemen will consider extraditing Anwar al-Awlaki rather than have it's space violated by the US. Our country has shown itself totally capable of striking within anyone's borders with impunity. And don't think I condone when all I'm doing is trying to make sense of a situation which has obviously been kept in the dark for the most part. Obama didn't need to make that announcement. That's the number one point to take into account. The fact that he did says a lot about what the many layered motivations are. It was a message to the world.

As I've been observing lately, there is much more going on under the surface than there appears to be. Obama and Hillary are putting a lot of pressure on Yemen and by extension many other countries in the Middle East. That old seeing one tenth of the iceberg applies here. Behind the scenes may be some very hot and heavy muscle diplomacy at work.

[vaberella]

40. Thanks Lunatica, because this is sort of what I'm seeing. n/t

[spoony]

44. Treason is something a person must be CONVICTED OF

before being executed.

[Nancy Waterman]

43. Thank you for this post.

We have been really warped after 8 years of Bush, and I think it has become hard to see clear on many things. We also seem to often feel the need to second guess everything after being so beaten down by Bush's policies. Personally, I trust Obama's motives and vision and capacity to understand the long-range implications of policy, something I never felt even an inkling of with respect to Bush. And due to that trust, I am willing to not second guess everything, even if at times it may seem he is doing something I disagree with. Frequently, he has been proven right after much criticism. I think we might consider stepping back from our addiction to outrage over every little thing.

As for this assassination policy, I am not sure it is any different than what has gone on for a long time. The only difference is that Obama has announced it. Beyond transparency, I wonder if there is some kind of purposeful mind game being played as a part of this announcement.

[femrap]

45. K and R

I would like to see terrorists viewed as criminals....a possible analogy would be The Mafia.

But then the Pentagon and all of its Contractors/Defense Industry would lose $$$$. And that's what it's all about really, isn't it? $$$$$ and Control.

The folks manufacturing Killing Machines sell to both sides....it's a Racket. War is a Racket and people fall for it every time. Fear Fear Fear. Nationalism, Nationalism, Nationalism. TPTB keep pushing those buttons.

To be honest, I'm more afraid of the Rich, White, Ugly, and Evil CEOs of multinational Corporations than I am these evil criminals.

The reason we have these criminals is because of the Evil CEOs who spur poverty and injustices around the world.

It's all Willful Ignorance. I need to go to Mendocino County.

[Tutonic]

46. I prefer to believe that mass insanity occurred when we allowed

the Supreme Court to annoint the court jester as king. At that moment, hope for mankind was defeated.