or Connect
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › "Do Not Kill" List - The formal whitehouse.gov petition
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Do Not Kill" List - The formal whitehouse.gov petition

post #1 of 203
Thread Starter 

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/create-do-not-kill-list/HwqFwRtG

 

Please petition President Obama and the US Government to create a "Do Not Kill" list so that US citizens can opt-out of Predator Drone attacks. The whitehouse.gov petition needs about 20,000 mores signatures in the next ten days for in order for Mr. Obama to formally recognize the petition. Please use Facebook, Twitter etc. to re-post this petition.

post #2 of 203

I'm all about it. Signed.

post #3 of 203

Never thought I would read this on the official White House blog:

 

Quote:
The New York Times reports that President Obama has created an official “kill list” that he uses to personally order the assassination of American citizens.

 

Anyway I'm glad we haven't forgotten about this. The 2012 Election Thread moved right on past it like it was going out of style. More important to discuss which side of the race is going to have the billionest dollars I guess. /grumble grumble 

post #4 of 203

Honestly, this neither surprises me, nor raises any hackles I may have. I'm sure every president has a list of people who they would prefer didn't breath air. This just feels like the first time someone admitted its existence.

post #5 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Jarvie View Post

Honestly, this neither surprises me, nor raises any hackles I may have. I'm sure every president has a list of people who they would prefer didn't breath air. This just feels like the first time someone admitted its existence.

 

I think you missed the part where this kill list exempts any Administration from the killing of innocents (including innocent Americans) if they happen to get in the way of a drone attack. It's basically a huge CYA. That's not legal, it's not constitutional, it's bad policy and it's fucking scary. And what the fuck is this idea that we should be happy about it just because we knew about it? That's so stupid. If this came out under the W. administration, people would be way more up in arms, as they should be. 

post #6 of 203

While the whole idea of a 'kill list' can be considered legally questionable AND morally reprehensible, I think that  we should not be so naive to realize that this kind of thing hasn't occurred in the past...it was just hidden from view.   

 

While I don't necessarily like the idea of a 'kill list', I can understand that it could be looked at as a more efficient and modern form of warfare that we have been dragged into using.

 

That being said, these decisions need to be made with a high degree of confidence and intelligence, both of which were severely lacking in the GW Bush admin. Personally, I will cut the Obama administration some slack with regards to implementation of these tactics as it seems as if it is being done with a much higher degree of competency than the aforementioned admin. Also, IIRC, Obama has fully accepted the responsibility for these actions...this gives him some credence in my eyes.

 

Rhetorically speaking, which is morally worse....a drone strike killing a dozen people or the invasion of a foreign country where tens of thousands of people are killed?  

 

On NPR/Talk of the Nation yesterday there was a piece about the new, evolving forms of warfare that are being used.

Quote:

Secrecy Stifles Debate On Black Operations

 

The U.S. conducts warfare against terrorists and against some states on many different levels, and in many far-flung places. David Sanger, author of Confront and Conceal, and NPR commentator Ted Koppel talk about the reliance on secrecy in warfare and how open the administration should be.

 

<excerpt>

 

This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Neal Conan in Washington. For years, U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen remained an open secret. There are reasons why missile attacks on the territory of quasi-allies weren't acknowledged, but because of that secrecy, legal justification started to emerge only last year, and the process that the president and his advisors use to put individuals on the kill list only came into focus this month in Daniel Klaidman's book "Kill or Capture."

For years, Israel or - and/or the United States were believed to be the creators of the Stuxnet virus that attacked Iran's nuclear facilities, and again, secrecy prevented debate over the wisdom and legality of cyber weapons. This month, David Sanger's book "Confront and Conceal" revealed the origins and operations of a weapon that delayed Iran's progress, maybe by years.

The U.S. conducts warfare against terrorists and against some states on many different levels and in many far-flung places. How important is secrecy? How open should the administration be with the American people?

post #7 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

 

That being said, these decisions need to be made with a high degree of confidence and intelligence, both of which were severely lacking in the GW Bush admin. Personally, I will cut the Obama administration some slack with regards to implementation of these tactics as it seems as if it is being done with a much higher degree of competency than the aforementioned admin. Also, IIRC, Obama has fully accepted the responsibility for these actions...this gives him some credence in my eyes.

 

 

How convenient for you. How many innocent people need to die in drone strikes before you start questioning your stance about how reasonable and intelligent these decisions are? Or are you not going to actually look into the innocent people dying because you're fairly comfortable with what's happening and would prefer not knowing about it?

post #8 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post

How convenient for you. How many innocent people need to die in drone strikes before you start questioning your stance about how reasonable and intelligent these decisions are? Or are you not going to actually look into the innocent people dying because you're fairly comfortable with what's happening and would prefer not knowing about it?

 

how's the weather up their on your moral high horse?

 

I never said I would stop questioning the presidents decisions and I will fully admit that I am not entirely comfortable with the idea of using drones to kill suspected terrorists BUT, I do understand that there might be times where this type of action would be much more palatable option. 

 

Also, I am fully aware that there may be a number of innocent people being killed and this should be unacceptable but if forced to choose between the death of a few vs. the death of many, I'd have to go with the former. I don't have to like that decision but I can comprehend the perceived necessity of it.

 

Unfortunately, I also realize that these types of violent responses are one of the main factors in the creation and use of terrorism...it's a double-edged sword. We're damned if we do kill them, we're damned if we don't kill them.

 

Given the recent political history of this nation, if I have to choose between the Dems/Obama to deal with the tough decisions vs. Romney/GOP, no question....the GOP has a history of fucking up everything they touch so I'd choose Obama to make these decisions all the while holding him accountable for these decisions. 


Edited by VTRan - 7/13/12 at 8:12am
post #9 of 203

Hmm, nine days to go. Another 19,877 votes needed. 5,123 already cast. How exactly would the whitehouse respond to this if it passed? I remember shortly after he came to office there were a lot of questions about legalizing weed that got upvoted in the first version of the whitehouse.gov website. He was technically supposed to answer them in some detail. His office just sort of waved them away. 

post #10 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

 

 

Given the recent political history of this nation, if I have to choose between the Dems/Obama to deal with the tough decisions vs. Romney/GOP, no question....the GOP has a history of fucking up everything they touch so I'd choose Obama to make these decisions all the while holding him accountable for these decisions. 

 

Unless the Republican party is completely destroyed, though, there will be another Republican administration eventually. And these kinds of actions set precedent for this kind of shit to continue. or get worse (just like W's reign probably set the precedent for this). Even if you're comfortable with Obama/dems making the decision (I'm not because I feel like it's super micro-management and just all around weird), that's not going to last forever. 

post #11 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post

 

Unless the Republican party is completely destroyed, though, there will be another Republican administration eventually. And these kinds of actions set precedent for this kind of shit to continue. or get worse (just like W's reign probably set the precedent for this). Even if you're comfortable with Obama/dems making the decision (I'm not because I feel like it's super micro-management and just all around weird), that's not going to last forever. 

 

I'll take super micro-management over a fratboy "our parents left us in charge so let's trash the place" mentality that is the modern GOP.

 

Speaking to the petition....the optimist in me likes the idea of these online petitions but he cynic in me says they are a waste of time.

I really think that an actual 'physical' petition or something like the Occupy Wall Street protests are the only true way to get the message heard in our society these days.

Also don't discount an actual handwritten letter to the Office of the President and/or your congressperson....not to mention that it would help out the USPS . :)

post #12 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

While the whole idea of a 'kill list' can be considered legally questionable AND morally reprehensible, I think that we should not be so naive to realize that this kind of thing hasn't occurred in the past...it was just hidden from view.

While I don't necessarily like the idea of a 'kill list', I can understand that it could be looked at as a more efficient and modern form of warfare that we have been dragged into using.

That being said, these decisions need to be made with a high degree of confidence and intelligence, both of which were severely lacking in the GW Bush admin. Personally, I will cut the Obama administration some slack with regards to implementation of these tactics as it seems as if it is being done with a much higher degree of competency than the aforementioned admin. Also, IIRC, Obama has fully accepted the responsibility for these actions...this gives him some credence in my eyes.

Rhetorically speaking, which is morally worse....a drone strike killing a dozen people or the invasion of a foreign country where tens of thousands of people are killed?
You know what? Bag on Bush's abuses all you like (it's not like you're short for material,) but there's no way that "well, his predecessor was worse" makes this any more acceptable. "I don't like it, but I don't oppose it because I suppose it's more efficient, and it's probably not as bad as some of the other things we've done" is a pretty fucking weaksauce argument. (And that's not even getting into the kind of precedents set by this...the fringe loonies have been predicting this kind of thing since Waco, I bet they're all feeling a bit vindicated now.)
post #13 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post


You know what? Bag on Bush's abuses all you like (it's not like you're short for material,) but there's no way that "well, his predecessor was worse" makes this any more acceptable. "I don't like it, but I don't oppose it because I suppose it's more efficient, and it's probably not as bad as some of the other things we've done" is a pretty fucking weaksauce argument. (And that's not even getting into the kind of precedents set by this...the fringe loonies have been predicting this kind of thing since Waco, I bet they're all feeling a bit vindicated now.)

 

You might not like it but there definitely seems as if there is a huge difference between how Obama is handling these things and how Cheney...I mean Bush...handled them.

 

I really wish that the world was all lollypops and rainbows where religious extremists didn't exploit the ignorance of others to further their fucked up ideological agendas but the world isn't black and white. The answer isn't simple or pretty but I would put to you the alternative would be a lot worse. Again, the questionable morality of these actions isn't lost on me...it's not something that I take lightly or without question but I think Obama is looking at and dealing with it logically vs. the emotion and deep seated animus from the Bush Admin.

 

Obama is truly between a rock and a hard place....if there is another terrorist attack in the US because he didn't act on intel, he's fucked...if he acts on the intel and orders an preemptive attack on the perpetrators,  people call him a bloodthirsty monster and he's fucked again.  He can't win. 

 

Could you offer up and alternative to deal with the individuals that would perpetrate terrorism?

post #14 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

 

You might not like it but there definitely seems as if there is a huge difference between how Obama is handling these things and how Cheney...I mean Bush...handled them.

 

 

 

I'll say.

post #15 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post

 

I'll say.

 

interesting graphic....now do you have a link to a graphic that shows the 4804 coalition soldiers that were killed in Iraq and the 3052 killed in Afghanistan....not to mention the 70,000+ civilian deaths due to the Iraq invasion/occupation. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/world/middleeast/23casualties.html?_r=1

post #16 of 203

No, but the subject is specifically about drone strikes. You're the one that keeps wanting to make it about the Iraq wars and Afghanistan. Nobody is going to argue with you about that. But your insistence that everything is fine about this particular issue is on thin ice when the best you can do to excuse it is to point at another issue all together. 

 

Need I remind you, you're the one that was all like "hey, at least we know about it" in terms of the drone strikes. After looking at that map, do you still feel that way?

post #17 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post

No, but the subject is specifically about drone strikes. You're the one that keeps wanting to make it about the Iraq wars and Afghanistan. Nobody is going to argue with you about that. But your insistence that everything is fine about this particular issue is on thin ice when the best you can do to excuse it is to point at another issue all together. 

 

Need I remind you, you're the one that was all like "hey, at least we know about it" in terms of the drone strikes. After looking at that map, do you still feel that way?

 

My point was that this terrorist situation can be handled a 'smart' way or a 'dumb' way...both are unpalatable but I would prefer the 'smart' way which IMO, is using the drones.

 

But to the point....OK, so we end the drone strikes....now what? Do we leave those that would use terrorism to pursue to their agendas ?

 

 

of note- the guest on Colbert tonight is Daniel Klaidman the author of "Kill or Capture: The War on Terror and the Soul of the Obama Presidency"

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/05/27/drones-the-silent-killers.html

post #18 of 203

As you've already pointed out, drone strikes will just strengthen terrorists resolve the world over. I don't have a solution to global terrorism in my pocket. And I don't believe I need one to be opposed to not only the drone strikes, but also the cavalier nature of the Obama administration's treatment of legality as far as "collateral damage" (I hate that term) and the definition of known terrorists extending in every single direction solely so our government can cover its own ass and feel less guilty about killing innocent people, possibly even innocent Americans. 

 

You keep speaking about terrorism. I keep thinking about those large circles on that map. The ones that signify the casualties that didn't belong to known terrorists. We might be killing some terrorists, but how many are we creating by unjustifiably murdering people who have no ties to terrorism?

 

At what point do we start saying "well, can you blame them for hating us so much and wanting us dead?"

post #19 of 203

Do people still think this isn't worth getting upset about?

 

I found this paragraph especially chilling and relevant. 



"In fact, what is most striking about the death of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki is both the lack of outrage and the lack of information about it — or, to be more exact, the lack of outrage over the lack of information. I spent the better part of this past spring researching and writing a story for the August issue of Esquire entitled "The Lethal Presidency of Barack Obama," which explores how President Obama's expansive embrace of the power to kill individuals identified as America's enemies has transformed not only his presidency but probably all American presidencies to follow. I conducted over 40 interviews with over 35 people — including former administration officials who could speak with authority about how targeting decisions are made — and tried to understand the moral reasoning of an administration that speaks as though nothing could be harder than killing individuals and behaves as though nothing could be easier, and carries out what amounts to executions on a mass scale. In addition to telling the story of the Lethal Presidency, I also wound up telling the story of the killings of Anwar and Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, because their deaths — the strange common fates of a father and a son who were both American citizens but died hundreds of kilometers away from one another in Yemen — managed to suggest how a policy built on technological precision and moral discrimination winds up blurring the lines between guilt and innocence and war and murder."
post #20 of 203
Quote:

 

Apparently so...

post #21 of 203

Alternatives?

post #22 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBananaGrabber View Post

Alternatives?

 

To what? Killing US citizens illegally? Without due process, or any kind of trial or any form of justice?
 

My alternative would be "not doing that."

 

There are pages and pages and pages about Trayvon Martin's presumed unjust murder, which I don't blame nobody for posting about, since it clearly stinks to high heaven. This 16 year old was killed because he was guilty by association...for being a Muslim and for being his fathers son. I see little difference, but nobody gives a shit.

post #23 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post

 

To what? Killing US citizens illegally? Without due process, or any kind of trial or any form of justice?
 

My alternative would be "not doing that."

 

There are pages and pages and pages about Trayvon Martin's presumed unjust murder, which I don't blame nobody for posting about, since it clearly stinks to high heaven. This 16 year old was killed because he was guilty by association...for being a Muslim and for being his fathers son. I see little difference, but nobody gives a shit.

 

You mean the United States Government is guilty of killing women, children, innocent civilians and even it's own citizens during the course of war (both declared and undeclared) and even do it for strategic and tactical purposes!? Shocking

 

I don't agree with it and I don't like it but this isn't remotely even the first time in the history of the United States something like this has happened. It's never going to stop...ever. Not as long as we live in a world where the economic and political interests of a Nation State are decided by a few men and women with defense budgets. I don't care how good, enlightened, moral, ethical etc, those in charge are claimed to be.  So sign the petitions, vote, whatever. You have a far more likely chance of stopping the next Trayvon Martin than you ever stop the next Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. That's depressing, it sucks and it's so very, very wrong but this is what happens when your government, democratic or despotic, decides to play Risk with real human lives and societies.

post #24 of 203

Parker, I want to paraphrase by saying that I agree with you, and think the drone strikes are heinous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post

 

To what? Killing US citizens illegally? Without due process, or any kind of trial or any form of justice?
 

My alternative would be "not doing that."

 

There are pages and pages and pages about Trayvon Martin's presumed unjust murder, which I don't blame nobody for posting about, since it clearly stinks to high heaven. This 16 year old was killed because he was guilty by association...for being a Muslim and for being his fathers son. I see little difference, but nobody gives a shit.

 

From a government perspective, what are the alternatives for bringing due process to lawless lands?

 

Republicans aren't going to call Obama out on it because it's exactly what they would be doing.  Democrats aren't going to call Obama out on it because it's an election year, and it's bad form.

 

The scary thing is, I can see the logic in it.  Pakistan's tribal regions doesn't have a police force, and neither does Yemen.  Drones are a horrifically elegant alternative to putting NATO soldiers in places they're not wanted.  And that the government seems to skate on it in a domestic outrage sense?  Gravy.

 

Imagine how vast the abstraction must be between the people in the chain of command, right down to the pilot, in a drone operation?  No accountability, nothing.  It's a video game.  I could be wrong on that.  There could be people at every stage that wracked with guilt over what they are doing, and that may try to stop it, somehow.

I would go so far as to say it's worthwhile to the US government (any administration), to keep killing innocents.  Then they have a constant pool of "Angry, Evil, Others" to continue feeding fear to the populace, and shoveling money into the military industrial complex.

 

But of course, I think we're headed for a dystopian nightmare that would shock Orwell.

post #25 of 203

Headed? I think we're there.

post #26 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post

Headed? I think we're there.
We're certainly making fine progress, in any case.
post #27 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bancroft Agee View Post

 

You mean the United States Government is guilty of killing women, children, innocent civilians and even it's own citizens during the course of war (both declared and undeclared) and even do it for strategic and tactical purposes!? Shocking

 

I don't agree with it and I don't like it but this isn't remotely even the first time in the history of the United States something like this has happened. It's never going to stop...ever. Not as long as we live in a world where the economic and political interests of a Nation State are decided by a few men and women with defense budgets. I don't care how good, enlightened, moral, ethical etc, those in charge are claimed to be.  So sign the petitions, vote, whatever. You have a far more likely chance of stopping the next Trayvon Martin than you ever stop the next Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. That's depressing, it sucks and it's so very, very wrong but this is what happens when your government, democratic or despotic, decides to play Risk with real human lives and societies.

 

Please give me an example of when a presidential administration has specifically targeted a sixteen year old American Citizen (or an even an appropriate equivalent) on a "kill list" and then claimed that his murder was totally justified without any kind of due process of law. This argument of "The US does terrible shit all the time, what's one more thing" is so faulty, I don't know where to begin, and it's telling that it's the one that I hear more than any other.

 

In any case, it's more the fact that they've done this while saying that it's perfectly legal (it's not), it sets a terrible precedent and nobody seems to care. Reactions like this drive me crazy because it's part of the problem. "Eh, it sucks, but what are you gonna do?"If that's really how people feel, then we're fucked. Everybody keeps saying "well at least Obama is in charge of it all," as if somehow that makes it okay. Even if you think that's the case, one way or another, he's not going to be President forever. I feel like too many people are just shrugging their shoulders over this. It's a big fucking deal.

 

You all realize that under the Obama administration, a presidential administration now has the precedent to kill US Citizens without a trial and have it be legal and detail US citizens indefinitely without a trial and have it be legal, yes? If we're not going to freak out about this, what will we freak out about? 

post #28 of 203

Also, the war on terror is like the war on drugs: It's pointless. The harder we rattle our sabers, the more resentment there will be. And like I said above, it's starting to get to the point where you can't really blame people for hating us so much.

post #29 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post

Headed? I think we're there.

 

sweet jeebus, perhaps this is a bit overly melodramatic view of current times.

 

US society is not Orwellian by a long shot....if the US truly becomes a repressive society, the last thing we'll be doing is talking about it on the internet.

post #30 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post

Also, the war on terror is like the war on drugs: It's pointless. The harder we rattle our sabers, the more

resentment there will be. And like I said above, it's starting to get to the point where you can't really blame people for hating us so much.

 

Lotta money being generated by those two particular 'wars'

post #31 of 203

They've also cost the US government hundreds of billions of dollars. 

 

To be honest, I have no moral issue with the theory of targeted killing of these bastards who are actively planning attacks against the US and other countries.  Arresting them would be preferable but it's very difficult because most of them are in Pakistan and the government there isn't doing enough.

 

The problem is that innocents die, which is obviously wrong.  And it's flawed from a practical standpoint too, as many hundreds of  Pakis are turned against the US.  But Obama has limited options.

 

And it's not like the 'war on terror'  - I agree that it's a stupid expression, let's call it a campaign - has been a total disaster.  The main body of Al-queda has been decimated.  There hasn't been a major attack on US soil since 9/11.  And those who say everybody hates us should bear in mind that there has been no anti-American sentiment expressed during the Arab spring protests.  

 

That said, the Iraq war proved to be unnecessary and was bungled.  Some conservatives believe it inspired the Arab Spring but I think that's garbage.

post #32 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluelouboyle View Post

They've also cost the US government hundreds of billions of dollars. 

 

To be honest, I have no moral issue with the theory of targeted killing of these bastards who are actively planning attacks against the US and other countries.  Arresting them would be preferable but it's very difficult because most of them are in Pakistan and the government there isn't doing enough.

 

The problem is that innocents die, which is obviously wrong.  And it's flawed from a practical standpoint too, as many hundreds of  Pakis are turned against the US.  But Obama has limited options.

 

And it's not like the 'war on terror'  - I agree that it's a stupid expression, let's call it a campaign - has been a total disaster.  The main body of Al-queda has been decimated.  There hasn't been a major attack on US soil since 9/11.  And those who say everybody hates us should bear in mind that there has been no anti-American sentiment expressed during the Arab spring protests.  

 

That said, the Iraq war proved to be unnecessary and was bungled.  Some conservatives believe it inspired the Arab Spring but I think that's garbage.

 

Listen, I don't know you so this may come over as being rude, but "Pakis"? Really?

 

Does that not have the same connotation in the US as it does across the pond? Referring to someone in the UK as a "Paki" is pretty much in the same ball park as calling someone a "n*gger".

 

I also wouldn't be too convinced that there is no anti-US sentiment in the countries experiencing popular uprisings recently. It may be they just have other things to protest about that seem more immediate and relevant. Also, it took Al Qaeda decades to work itself up to 9/11. You can claim succes that there haven't been material incidents in the US, but there sure as all heck have been elsewhere. In many ways, the strategic value of attacking the US has already been achieved.

post #33 of 203
The only anti-US sentiment is against successive governments' policy of pretty much blindly supporting dictators such as Mubarak via grotesque amounts of Military aid. I don't think they are very concerned with the hunt for Al-queda.

And I live in the UK. 'Paki' is not a word most people use but then I like to think I don't live in a fascist society. Nigger is a far worse term, with a horrific history.
post #34 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

 

sweet jeebus, perhaps this is a bit overly melodramatic view of current times.

 

US society is not Orwellian by a long shot....if the US truly becomes a repressive society, the last thing we'll be doing is talking about it on the internet.

 

That's not what I'm talking about. When people react rationally and make excuses to the news that a US President targeted and killed a US citizen without any kind of trial, I can't help but think of lines like 2+2=5.

 

And while your point is certainly valid, you can''t argue that these kinds of actions open the door to a repressive society. At this point, there's no legal precedent stopping the Executive Branch from killing you or locking you up. And you seem perfectly fine with that fact; seem to defend it, even, to a degree. That's a form of repression that does live in Orwell's work at its core and it's far scarier than the big brother aspects/socialist nightmare world the characters inhabit.  

post #35 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluelouboyle View Post

To be honest, I have no moral issue with the theory of targeted killing of these bastards who are actively planning attacks against the US and other countries.  Arresting them would be preferable but it's very difficult because most of them are in Pakistan and the government there isn't doing enough.

 

The problem is that innocents die, which is obviously wrong.  And it's flawed from a practical standpoint too, as many hundreds of  Pakis are turned against the US.  But Obama has limited options.

 

The kid we're talking about was a US CITIZEN. NO PROOF HE WAS WORKING WITH TERRORISTS. NO TRIAL. GUILTY BY ASSOCIATION AND KILLED FOR IT.

 

Sorry to be obnoxious, but however much you excuse the drone attacks because it might happen to kill some terrorists, however fine you might feel about innocent people in other nations being murdered along with them, the bar has been lowered here. We're talking about someone who is one of us. I feel like people are glossing over this fact FAR too lightly and it's frustrating. 

 

Everyone keeps talking about the limited options Obama has. How about just like...not bombing them all the time? Since when did all of you become such hawks? Is it because of 9/11? As many of you have pointed out, 9/11 is nothing compared to the atrocities we've committed against other nations.I'm not saying we "deserved it," I'm not excusing what was done, but we're being incredibly naive if we think that we can just bomb the world into submission. The resentment is only going to grow.

post #36 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post

 

The kid we're talking about was a US CITIZEN. NO PROOF HE WAS WORKING WITH TERRORISTS. NO TRIAL. GUILTY BY ASSOCIATION AND KILLED FOR IT.

 

 

You're assuming a lot here.  Given the lack of transparency on these decisions, it's totally fair to question them.  But the fact is we have no idea why the 16 year old was specifically targeted.  I can think of a few good reasons.  And, frankly, trying to track down your most-wanted terrorist dad is some Darwin Award level asking for it.

post #37 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuddL View Post

You're assuming a lot here. Given the lack of transparency on these decisions, it's totally fair to question them. But the fact is we have no idea why the 16 year old was specifically targeted. I can think of a few good reasons. And, frankly, trying to track down your most-wanted terrorist dad is some Darwin Award level asking for it.
Yeah, I can see how executive-ordered assassinations of US citizens is an area where "I dunno, it was probably valid, maybe" is a healthy reaction.
post #38 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post


Yeah, I can see how executive-ordered assassinations of US citizens is an area where "I dunno, it was maybe valid" is a healthy reaction.


Fixed.  I think this administration has set a bad precedent.  I think there needs to be more transparency, or this targeted killing program needs to end.  But I also think, to a certain extent, when you're a custodian of civilization, there is some flexibility in means/ends justification. 

post #39 of 203
Please explain what the US and / or it's allies have done which is worse than 9/11.
post #40 of 203

Are you fucking kidding me?

post #41 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuddL View Post

 

You're assuming a lot here.  Given the lack of transparency on these decisions, it's totally fair to question them.  But the fact is we have no idea why the 16 year old was specifically targeted.  I can think of a few good reasons.  And, frankly, trying to track down your most-wanted terrorist dad is some Darwin Award level asking for it.

 

Judge, jury and executioner. "We don't know, but it looks suspicious enough to me not to have a guilty conscience." 

 

He's a US citizen. It's a law that he deserves a trial. The law. Even if the President or anyone else had proof, they can't just decide that's good enough. That's not how our justice system is designed to work.

post #42 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post

Are you fucking kidding me?

No.
post #43 of 203

This whole situation is fucked - even moreso that whatever dickhead Republican gets into the White House next will have carte blanche to ramp up this kind of thing even more than Obama has.  I keep coming back to this passage from the New Yorker about how Obama

 

 

Quote:
embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.

In other words, if we thought that you were someone we should kill, and we did kill you, and you look to be the right age to be cast as an extra in a spy movie, you were guilty. Does that mean that, if a house is hit and the bodies of a father, mother, teen-age boy, and middle-school-aged girl are found entangled with each other, two are combatants and two are civilians?

These words are important because of the argument that we have to act to protect ourselves: there is a terrorist on a screen; hit him now. But how are we deciding who a terrorist is? In some cases, we don’t even know the names of people we’re killing, in countries where we are not actually at war. In others, we do know their names, and don’t care who dies with them. (In one strike, in which the identity of the man was known, according to the Times, Obama made a deliberate decision to kill his wife and in-laws along with him.)

 

It's a shame.

post #44 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluelouboyle View Post


No.

 

I won't even go that far back in time (although I could, for centuries of atrocities --- one of which should be fairly obvious, as we're the only country that's ever used atomic force against another). Start with how many civilians were killed in the Iraq War. A war we started without any cause. A war we worsened by misunderstanding the culture we were immersing ourselves with. A situation made more tense by disbanding the Iraqi army.

Over 100,000 civilians were killed during the Iraq War. Not soldiers, not terrorists, civilians. 
 

9/11 was terrible and the actions were unforgivable, but how in the world are you going to suggest to me that the life of 3000 people are worth more than the lives of over 100,000?

post #45 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post

 

I won't even go that far back in time (although I could, for centuries of atrocities --- one of which should be fairly obvious, as we're the only country that's ever used atomic force against another). Start with how many civilians were killed in the Iraq War. A war we started without any cause. A war we worsened by misunderstanding the culture we were immersing ourselves with. A situation made more tense by disbanding the Iraqi army.

Over 100,000 civilians were killed during the Iraq War. Not soldiers, not terrorists, civilians. 
 

9/11 was terrible and the actions were unforgivable, but how in the world are you going to suggest to me that the life of 3000 people are worth more than the lives of over 100,000?

 

Don't be silly Parker, they were only Pakis.

post #46 of 203
Because the deaths caused by the Iraq war were not deliberate acts of murder designed to kill as many innocent people as possible. Unlike 9/11.

The war was a huge blunder but it's not comparable to 9/11.
post #47 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluelouboyle View Post

Because the deaths caused by the Iraq war were not deliberate acts of murder designed to kill as many innocent people as possible. Unlike 9/11.
The war was a huge blunder but it's not comparable to 9/11.

 

Wow, how are things back in 2002?

post #48 of 203
And your point is?
post #49 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluelouboyle View Post

And your point is?

 

Man if you can't see it I'm not gonna bother explaining it to you, you're a grown up presumably with some base level ofempathy, just not for accidently killed brown people it would seem.

post #50 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

 

 

 

Also, I am fully aware that there may be a number of innocent people being killed and this should be unacceptable but if forced to choose between the death of a few vs. the death of many, I'd have to go with the latter. I don't have to like that decision but I can comprehend the perceived necessity of it.

 

 

 

 

Um, don't you mean "former"?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › "Do Not Kill" List - The formal whitehouse.gov petition