Drone strikes: Obama is acting like Bush, with Eric Holder as his Dick Cheney

[The Northerner]

Thank you for enunciating my thoughts exactly in your editorial "Death by drone" (March 9).

I would think a vast majority of the people voted for Barack Obama as a repudiation of the disastrous Bush-Cheney administration. But President Obama, like his predecessor, is trying to usurp power I would argue rests with the legislative branch. I would never have guessed that Attorney General Eric Holder would make some convoluted but lame excuse for denying U.S. citizens due process. Mr. Holder at his press conference gave a great impersonation of Dick Cheney.

Mr. Holder's argument was to trust us. We know better. Assassinations are necessary because we said so.

This is so dangerous. As Human Rights Watch pointed out, U.S. drones have killed at least 175 Pakistani children. I refuse to accept them as collateral damage. Drones are illegal and should be banned. I want an attorney general who makes this argument against the wishes of his president and for we the people.

Max Obuszewski, Baltimore

Source: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-03-13/news/bs-ed-obama-holder-letter-20120313_1_drone-strikes-president-obama-bush-cheney

[msongs]

1. when the administration says "transparency" it means OUR business will be transparent to them nt

[Rex]

4. All administrations need a DU transparency page

so we can see what the REC!

[FarLeftFist]

41. I love how people conveniently forget THIS PART of Holder's statement:

Made during the same speech:


But surveillance is only the first of many complex issues we must navigate. Once a suspected terrorist is captured, a decision must be made as to how to proceed with that individual in order to identify the disposition that best serves the interests of the American people and the security of this nation....
Our criminal justice system is renowned not only for its fair process; it is respected for its results. We are not the first Administration to rely on federal courts to prosecute terrorists, nor will we be the last. Although far too many choose to ignore this fact, the previous Administration consistently relied on criminal prosecutions in federal court to bring terrorists to justice. John Walker Lindh, attempted shoe bomber Richard Reid, and 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui were among the hundreds of defendants convicted of terrorism-related offenses – without political controversy – during the last administration.

Over the past three years, we’ve built a remarkable record of success in terror prosecutions. For example, in October, we secured a conviction against Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab for his role in the attempted bombing of an airplane traveling from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day 2009. He was sentenced last month to life in prison without the possibility of parole. While in custody, he provided significant intelligence during debriefing sessions with the FBI....

In addition to Abdulmutallab, Faizal Shahzad, the attempted Times Square bomber, Ahmed Ghailani, a conspirator in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, and three individuals who plotted an attack against John F. Kennedy Airport in 2007, have also recently begun serving life sentences....

I could go on. Which is why the calls that I’ve heard to ban the use of civilian courts in prosecutions of terrorism-related activity are so baffling, and ultimately are so dangerous. These calls ignore reality. And if heeded, they would significantly weaken – in fact, they would cripple – our ability to incapacitate and punish those who attempt to do us harm.

Simply put, since 9/11, hundreds of individuals have been convicted of terrorism or terrorism-related offenses in Article III courts and are now serving long sentences in federal prison. Not one has ever escaped custody. No judicial district has suffered any kind of retaliatory attack. These are facts, not opinions. There are not two sides to this story. Those who claim that our federal courts are incapable of handling terrorism cases are not registering a dissenting opinion -- they are simply wrong.


In other words, a good deal of AG Holder's speech was defending the use of civilian courts to try terrorism suspects. "Justifying continuation & expansion of Bush admin "war on terror" policies"? Erm...not so much.

[Rex]

52. Well, for the record I do not compare GWB to Obama

or Dick Cheney to AG Holder. They have the right (according to them) to assassinate anyone based on intel and no mention of due process for the suspect. No thanks, I am not into that no matter what administration thinks it is okay. I am also no okay with flying drones over our skies at home. Holder can talk for days of good deeds and justice...but all it takes is one or two sentences by him on unilateral authority that makes me go

They better do a hell of a lot better job in the second term at defending rights of American citizens.

At least they are not waterboarding people!

[woo me with science]

2. Thank you, Mr. Obuszewski.

Who ever thought we would see these things here?

People are waking up.

[Rex]

3. When you give up power, it is hard to get it back.

That is why people were so upset when Bush suspended due process for all Americans. It was a benchmark that now is the standard.

[sabrina 1]

5. And I remember pointing that out to rightwingers when they cheered on every Constitutional

violation Bush and his gang committed and/or passed into law. I remember telling them their team would not always be in control and one day, they would regret being so short-sighted and so willing to impose their will on their 'enemies' which was US at the time.

And now people on the Left are demonstrating the same kind of blind faith that if their team is doing it it's okay.

I guess that works very well for those in power as eventually they have the whole country supporting destroying the Constitution. Thank the gods for the few who continue to fight for principles and who do not change their views regardless of who is doing it. I've yet to hear any of the defenders of this policy give a reasonable explanation of why they now support it when they were so outraged during the Bush administration.

[Rex]

7. Yes, same here been saying that to rwingers for years and years.

Oh? You like the idea of suspending Habeus Corpus? Okay. Just don't come complaning when we have a Democratic president that is every bit as ruthless and cunning on the world stage as any leader of the GOP party! Yeah you don't like Obama, all those authortarian, unilateral powers!!! MY MY just WHERE DID they come from!?

Must have been a majic law faerie in 2009 just waved a wand etc...

What's that? You don't like the fact Obama can have someone assassinated without a trial? You were all for it when GWB was in office!! Obama is torturing people!!? Nonsense, that was quite alright under GWB...did you forget about Syria and the CIA? Yeah all those Patiot Act laws...who would have guessed? Waterboarding was a GREAT idea from 2001-2008...why the change of heart Bart?

Shortsighted people really get on my nerves. Like you said sabrina 1, thank goodness there are still a few people around that sound the alarm bells when someone comes along and tries to erode even more of our Constitutional Rights!

They are few and far between imo.

GOPers are just shortsighted idiots.

[SammyWinstonJack]

10. Those people will be back to condemning it again with the next repug occupying the WH.

They can have it both way, I guess.

[sabrina 1]

23. Yes, when you get to the far extremes of both parties, there is not much difference.

[Puzzledtraveller]

35. Tribalism perhaps.

Very apparent and true regardless of why it tends to be that way. Dissapointing because it obscures validity from the observer outside of the group. We only see the extreme on the right, they only see the extreme on the left.

[joshcryer]

36. I condemned it when Obama campaigned on it, and "those people" cheerlead his candidacy.

[CJCRANE]

58. I'm so not sure. I think the people who condemned Bush for his strikes

do the same to Obama.

And the people who supported strikes still support them.

You forget that back in Bush's first term many DUers were 'Clarkies', so they weren't pacificists. For instance, I for one was very surprised that Bush didn't send a bunch of cruise missiles into Bin Laden's base in Kandahar.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

15. Yup, the Power Creep happenes with every Admin --

even the ones with the "D" after their names. It takes Congress or the Courts to claw it back from them. I am not hopeful about any corrective measures happening.

[Rex]

17. Not with the current state of Congress or the SOTUS.

Congress still has an approval rating of pond scum and Scarface (Scalia) just told a crowd that it was Gore vs Bush and the vote was 7 for 2 against...

[cbrer]

6. Did Dick Cheney

Ever tacitly OK killing US citizens by redefining "due process"?

Or cover up arms sales to Mexican drug cartels?

As (almost) an aside, drones can be a potent weapon on a battlefield. In terms of securing victory and saving friendly lives.

Not so much in an urban setting...

[larkrake]

12. yes he did,

killing anyone who sought to expose him.

arms sales to drug lords, and giving nuclear technology and sales to Iran and north Korea.

Selling and using weapons to both sides in conflicts. Deliberate murder.

Started an illegal war, killing up to a million civilians so oil companies could contract for oil.

Disappeared a hell-uv-a-lot of US citizens that have never been heard from so are probably dead.

As well as many other crimes against us citizens.

Obama uses drones to spare lives, US as well as civilian lives that boots on the ground troops would kill. Yes, innocents do die.

The legislation against US terrorists is as much a deterrent as frightening. Alot of recent citizens (immigrants from the mid east and other places) COULD be sleepers and should not think we wont kill ANY terrorist no matter what citizenship they have.

In the US, drones wont be armed with anything but cameras linked to satallites. I do not doubt the gov is spying on known operatives today. It may be the gov fears a US Spring forming up as well, and wants to identify the instigators. American terrorists do exist and have been foiled many times by Obama's intelligence agents in the last 3 yrs. They are a far larger danger to us than foreign folk.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

16. Dick Cheney did that and MUCH, much worse.

O is a piker compared to Dick.

[sabrina 1]

24. Yes, he did. He set the policies that started the destruction of rights for the people of this

country and other countries. He has so much blood on his hands it's no wonder he had to replace his heart with a mechanical device.

That doesn't excuse this administration for adapting any of those policies, but to even ask that question about Cheney is astounding, frankly.

[cbrer]

26. Frankly

I didn't write that question to seriously suggest one was better than the other. Those events don't merit a scorecard, and both men are guilty of major crimes. Cripes, how black is black?

[gulliver]

68. You can't seriously compare Cheney to Obama.

Maybe you can comment on the similarity of night and day next. You know, I guess they are both time periods, so...

[cbrer]

70. Please reread thread

[gratuitous]

8. Tut, tut

The re-education committee will be along to point out the error of your ways to you soon enough.

[Rex]

9. Their bus broke down and the spare tire is missing.

nt.

[sudopod]

11. It got knocked off last time they threw someone under there, I hear. nt

[Rex]

13. HA!

Perfect!!

[fascisthunter]

18. LOL! Good One...

[joshcryer]

28. Eh, isn't it more about educating to point out Obama actually said he'd do this?

Or does no one remember his nomination speech and his saber rattling throughout the campaign?

Rose colored glasses and all.

[surfdog]

14. When was Osama bin Laden's trial ?

I must have missed it

Anybody ?

Point me to the problem ... What Americans are we talking about ?

[EFerrari]

19. Your government is killing people it claims are bad

without any kind of transparency let alone due process.

If you don't see the problem there, Al Qaida is the least of your worries.

[SomethingFishy]

20. Most Democrats are Hypocrites.

Isn't that what you said? So why ask? You want the problem to be pointed out to you? Why because you can't figure it out for yourself? Want to know why you can't figure it out? Narcissism. You see YOU ARE THE PROBLEM. You and your ignorance of the ideals, laws, and Constitution of your own country. Good luck.

[surfdog]

34. Yes most Democrats are hypocrites

Have you ever noticed how Democrats will point the finger at Dick Cheney or Bohner and say they are "vile monsters"

But a family member that holds the same views is called a "loved one"

How can that be ?

Here are two people that hold the same views one is a "monster" and one is a "loved one"

hypocrisy at its worst

I'm pretty sure the alert police will not be able to handle the simple truth and this post will be hidden like many many others

take a bow

[joshcryer]

39. Love transcendes political or philosophical leanings?

What the hell is this about.

[surfdog]

40. At least you admit your hypocrisy

Two people hold the same exact views and you can view one as a monster and one as a loved one just because they're in your family

Being in your family does not change their views

Like I said at least you can admit your hypocrisy

[joshcryer]

45. I'm not filled with hate and vitriol for anyone who has a bad opinion.

I reserve that for those who have power to use that opinion in a way that fucks shit up.

"Just because they're in my family" means they're not sitting on a board that is pushing buttons and dropping bombs on people.

I see no hypocrisy in that.

I do see hypocrisy in people who championed Obama when he said he was going to ramp up attacks and took a hard line view on terrorism. His unprecedented drone attacks are a campaign promise kept.

[surfdog]

47. "I see no hypocrisy in that"

Of course you don't most hypocrites don't see their own hypocrisy

Just like most brainwashed people don't know they're brainwashed

If two people hold the same exact views and yet you judge them differently because one of them is a family member , that makes you a hypocrite

You can tell me torture ect...is a political issue all you want it doesn't make it true

[joshcryer]

48. Withholding my opinion from someone does not make me a hypocrite.

That only assumes that I have stated that I am blunt and forthright and don't withhold my opinion from anyone, in which case, I would be a hypocrite if I did withhold my opinion.

Withholding my opinion makes me kind, caring, and understanding to other people.

I've convinced more people in progressivism through not being antagonistic and hateful as you wish for me to do to meet your "purity test."

[surfdog]

49. Oh I see

You think Dick Cheney is a traitorous monster and you also think you're Republican family members are traitorous monsters but you just hold your opinion back ?

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't treat Dick Cheney has an equal and show him respect but I would guess that you are showing respect to your family members and treating them as equals

Not really withholding your opinion now are you ?

[joshcryer]

50. No, I didn't say that. I think Cheney is a war criminal. I do not think that my family members are.

Now, you may think that your family members who, if you behave this way in real life, you've likely disowned are themselves "traitorous monsters," but that has no bearing on ones love for family.

It must be really tragic to go through life filled with such hate and vitriol for other people.

I pity you.

[surfdog]

53. Like I said...

At least you would make your hypocrisy

Two people holding the same exact views gets judged differently by you , that's called hypocrisy buddy

Take a bow most won't admit their own hypocrisy

[joshcryer]

55. One is a war criminal, the other is not.

Stop calling me a hypocrite and realize I never said that I condemn equally all human beings I disagree with.

I condemn war criminals, not regular folk.

[Dragonfli]

61. This exchange is fascinating, he really can't see it can he?

It reminds me of the race of beings in Doctor Who that stand right in front of you looking quite monster like and yet no one can ever remember seeing them.

When a blind spot is so well defined and so large that it defies the perception of reality obvious to even the casual observer it is a fascinating thing to observe.

[Dragonfli]

62. The hypocrisy is that Democrats are now doing the same things

And supporters of the right wing infiltration portion of the party cheer on anything done under their banner.

Take away the wedge issues and the parties differ very little in their actions and disdain for human rights

They still rip up the Constitution the same way and support the same bankers.

[rhett o rick]

22. Please state your opinion instead of insinuation by question.

You got something to say, spit it out.

[rudycantfail]

21. There is a strong authoritarian mindset

on this forum which is crazy considering we just got done with Bush.

[USArmyParatrooper]

25. Here's what I don't understand...

Why does anyone think drone strikes are in such a category of their own? What difference does it make if a pilot is actually inside the aircraft? If you're against bombing al-Qaeda targets all together then argue that. But the fact that it's a drone strike is no more significant than if it were a JDAM fired from an manually flown aircraft or if it's from a surface to surface cruise missile.

[msanthrope]

29. Manufactured outrage of the day.

Frankly I'd have been jumping for joy had Bush drone struck AQAP. He would have been doing his fucking job, as opposed to invading Iraq. I didn't have a problem with WJC ordering strikes, either.

You have a small percentage of posters here who think that people like Awlaki are "non-violent." There's no reasoning with that crowd.

[TheKentuckian]

43. Ease and relative cheapness of proliferation is a big difference, the utter disconnect from

battle for warriors is another, making war the easy and sanitary path is also a concern, no body bags, no soldiers living through hell or coming home fucked up. Peace is ellusive, costly, and fiendishly difficult next to cheap, safe, and utterly detached from risk for an aggressive power.

Certainly, the dead are no more dead if the hellfire comes from a remote than a piloted craft but the remotes come way cheaper and all sense of skin out of the game and allows our warriors to act without even the consequence of seeing the dead and looking into the eyes of the survivors, it allows one to create carnage and at most see it as a low budget action flick.

They are also being used on us for surrveilence and the use expands along with acceptance. 3 police choppers is one thing, a virtually limitless amount of them, acting in a network with other localities, states, and the Feds is a whole other story.

[surfdog]

44. Yes it is strange to see...

Democrats defending Al Qaeda leadership has nonviolent

Who would've thought Al Qaeda leadership has supporters and defenders on the DU ?

[CJCRANE]

54. You seem to be playing both sides...

criticizing DUers who support strikes against al-Qaeda and also those who don't.

DUers are not monolithic. Some support direct military strikes against al-Qaeda and always have been and others are against drone strikes for moral reasons (due to civilian casualties, lack of accountability etc). There is no hypocrisy if the person is consistent in their views.

[joshcryer]

59. Check their transparency page.

On their profile on the transparency tab.

They've said stuff in this thread that would fall in the same category as those other posts but I don't alert.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

60. I don't see DUers "defending" or "supporting" AQ --

What I do see is DUers defending the fucking Constitution of the United States, you know the one that provides for due process for every American citizen, regardless of how reprehensible they or what they did are.

If an American citizen is involed with illegal actions against the US then catch them, haul their sorry asses into an American court, try the fuckers, and sentance them as appropriate.

Call me old fashioned.

In protecting Alwaki's rights, we are protecting our own rights.

[Robb]

31. Drone strikes are spookier.

Cruise missiles don't conjure up any comic book dystopian fantasies, either.

It's all context.

[joshcryer]

33. Drone strike RoE are too weak, imo.

The Rules of Engagement are when a guy is sitting around drinking some coffee in a nice air conditioned room somewhere. One cannot argue against their effectiveness at killing, but one can argue against their accuracy.

The technology is improving and sooner or later you'll have full on legalized assassination, will be able to target so specifically as to take out top leaders, etc. The legal ramifications of that are going to be really interesting, particularly when "their side" gets a hold of it.

[sad sally]

63. They're in a category of their own because they are unlike other conventional weaponry used

There are moral, ethical and legal principles that supposedly the US is based on, and these issues have been disregarded starting with the Bush administration and escalated by the Obama administration.

Technology seems to have allowed our leadership and lawmakers to put aside questioning whether the use of force by drones will accomplish what we claim we're setting out to do. Is there a just cause to target and assassinate without examining the legal ramifications? Is this the last resort? Is use of drones proportional to the problem we claim to be solving? These are all moral, ethical and legal issues that need to be asked - and answered.

Additionally, the CIA oversees more and more drone strikes as part of counterterrorism operations, so US officials refuse to discuss the program publicly. Drone technology is advancing to the point where software that recognizes the targets and then makes a decision that’s ethical to destroy targets, with no human intervention. Is this what Americans really want - secret operations, machines operated by machines targeting humans?

[USArmyParatrooper]

65. Again...

Explain to me how these legal questions exist with drones but not other other delivery systems for the same bombs. There are secret and top secret military missions that can't be discussed publicly as well.

[joshcryer]

27. That's not really true, to be frank.

Obama is acting 10x worse than Bush when it comes to targeted killing.

Only thing is that Obama is doing so legally within the confines of international law and US law, unlike Bush who got us into an illegal war and openly lied about it.

[msanthrope]

30. Target strikes of AQ in 2001-2002 would have diminished the rationale

for Iraq. There's a reason Bush left enough of them around.

But I don't expect BHO to repeat Bush's failed strategy. And I wonder at the people who expect BHO to clean up Bush's fuckups with less power than he had.

[joshcryer]

32. Presidential powers rarely go away, imo.

I can only think of one that was really powerful, the line item veto, that got stripped.

edit: to clarify, Bush didn't have those powers in 2001-2002. It wasn't enabled to a modern extent until Military Commissions Act of 2006, which explicitly defined unlawful combatants and justified the use of force by any sitting US President against any actors who weren't recognized or supported by a state.

I don't know that BHO will be more successful, he needs to step up the diplomacy hard.

And to be honest, there was no rationale for Iraq, it was a quagmire of epic proportions.

[Robb]

37. That's sort of a distinction without a difference.

Yes, Bush didn't explicitly have those powers. But in 2001-2002 there would've been ZERO outcry if he had exercised them in Afghanistan. He could've attacked anyone he wanted -- by way of supporting evidence on this claim, I present Iraq.

[joshcryer]

38. That sounds like you're advocating going outside of the confines of our own law.

Bush lied to get into Iraq, admitted as much, but until unlawful combatant was defined the drone strikes were an anomaly at best. Now they're the go to mechanism for any military event.

[msanthrope]

42. A fair point. I do disagree with you on your legal analysis

however since the MCA of 2006 dealt with custodial prisoners primarily.**** The AUMF of 9-18-01 provides all the authorization the president needs to drone strike----remember the Bush drone strikes in Yemen in 2004??? No???? John Yoo would like you to forget them too.....because it begs the question......why was Bush not using this all along????



The critics of the president's drone program have failed to ask something. Bush drone struck Yemen in 2004. Tell us why the left never mentions that in critque....but BHO is castigated for it? Seems an awfully convenient rightist talking point that shields Bush's inept war strategy....why the hell weren't we doing this in 2001???

****The mistake in your legal analysis is conflating custodial and non-custodial combatants. The ACLU's filings on behalf of Awlaki's father, and Judge Bates's opinion are an excellent analysis of this issue. To paraphrase Bates...the fugitive from the law cannot raise due process issues. If Mr. Awlaki could post to Youtube from his Yemeni cave, then he could have secured counsel and challenged his status. In the meantime, the US had every right to stop his plans.

[joshcryer]

46. The problem is that unlawful combatants only existed in legal precedence.

They were undefined as the law expressed it. Once defined, then you have a clear method of applying targeted killing and justifying it under the law. Arguably Bush's Yemen strikes were illegal, since at the time they were undefined, a President can only do what the law grants him power to do. The other targeted killings were very meticulous, you can tell that the Bush administration didn't want to step on toes (and it worked because as you said, the left didn't complain much about it).

But Obama deserves all the castigation for his targeted killing, sorry.

Bush: http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/08/10/the-bush-years-2004-2009/

Obama: http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/08/10/obama-2009-strikes/

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/08/10/obama-2010-strikes/

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/08/10/obama-2011-strikes/

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/01/11/obama-2012-strikes/

What's important to remember, though, is that Obama promised he'd do it. This is one campaign promise I personally don't think he should've kept.

But it polls high with the bloodthirsty American public, doesn't put troops in harms way, and is comparatively cheap to using invasion forces.

[msanthrope]

51. Sorry, but again you've applied the wrong law. SDGT status dates

from sept. 2001. The IEEPA dates from the 70s.

You keep insisting that 'x' law applies, but I think you would benefit from reading the ACLU's briefing on the Awlaki case.

As for Mr. Bush, are you now suggesting his pursuit of AQ was "meticulous?" I find that as questionable as claiming that Awlaki was "non-violent." (which another poster did, to be fair.) I am amazed at the lengths some posters will go to castigate President Obama...

[joshcryer]

57. Yes, perhaps that is overreaching.

I just compare Bush's use of drones to Obama and he didn't use it much before the Military Commissions Act of 2006. It seems as if he didn't use it because the powers he had were limiting him. I'll take your word that it had nothing to do with it despite that it defined unlawful combatants (yes, the definition had more to do with their status for tribunals and capture and the like, but it also means that killing them is perfectly valid, too, even in other countries if we deem them a threat).

As far as "castigating President Obama" and implying that I'm defending Bush, sorry, but that's how it is. I defend Obama for being consistent. I diverge with Obama when it comes to targeted killing. Too many people put on rose colored glasses during the elections and magically thought Obama was going to end Bush-era policies. I knew that he wasn't going to, he said as much.

[msanthrope]

64. Bush didn't use more drones because fighting a shorter war wasn't the goal.

I'll be damned before I join the likes of John Yoo and fault a Democratic president for fighting a better war than the previous Republican one...especially when Bush had the same tools.

I mean, is anyone taking seriously the ludicrous claim that Bush was 'constrained' from using drones? Constrained by what or whom??? What an ass-covering rightist talking point Mr Yoo is pushing.

[CJCRANE]

56. IIRC Clinton used cruise missiles against Bin Laden

at one point, so the precedent was there.

[gulliver]

69. If by "worse" you mean "more effective" then yes. n/t

[bluestate10]

66. I 100% drone strikes to kill terrorists. President Obama should NEVER risk the life on one

soldier when more effective means like armed drones are available. I can't wait for the day when efficient land based drones can track down and kill terrorists. Fuck terrorists and their perceived RIGHTS? Kill any that remotely imply, or encourage the killing of innocent people when any killed innocents are anything but colateral damage when a bonafide murderer is killed.

[woo me with science]

67. K&R

[woo me with science]

71. Kick