What I marvel at is the hypocrisy of the current adm. They would get tongue tied over the idea of having to mutter the words 'war on terror'... they called it "man-caused disasters," The Ft. Hood massacre they called "workplace violence."

Also it is great that they've finally come around to the doctrine of preemption. From the memo :the condition that an operation leader present an “imminent” threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future. Given the nature of, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, in which civilian airliners were hijacked to strike the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, this definition of imminence, which would require the United States to refrain from action until preparations for an attack are concluded, would not allow the United States sufficient time to defend itself.”

Just a thought... under these ROE's ,didn't the attack on the 'special mission' in Benghazi merit a drone strike or 2 ?

This whole droning thing is but a prequel for Brennan's nomination hearings. The intelligence committee chairman has already said he was briefed fully on all the drone strikes so far and he is a republican. Rogers from MI.

Its like those guys who could have had their questions answered with a phone call, or been at the briefings, instead of reading the newspapers or Fox news for intelligence. Now they worry about rights of an idiot who takes credit for plots, and plans, and hides among so called innocent Yemen's.

Give me a break please, they had 3 years or more to holler about killing Americans, and they didn't. Now they are worried?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

This whole droning thing is but a prequel for Brennan's nomination hearings. The intelligence committee chairman has already said he was briefed fully on all the drone strikes so far and he is a republican. Rogers from MI.

Its like those guys who could have had their questions answered with a phone call, or been at the briefings, instead of reading the newspapers or Fox news for intelligence. Now they worry about rights of an idiot who takes credit for plots, and plans, and hides among so called innocent Yemen's.

Give me a break please, they had 3 years or more to holler about killing Americans, and they didn't. Now they are worried??

---

It was NBC that got the memo and made it an issue.

And you think this leak was a coincidence 4 days before a hearing? Its been known for 4 years. I wouldn't be surprised if the president himself put it out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

And you think this leak was a coincidence 4 days before a hearing? Its been known for 4 years. I wouldn'tbe surprised if the president himself put it out there.

---

Um, we've all known he was using drones but we did not know about the policy memo and as I said before, Democrats are pi$$ed about it too and demanding accountability, so don't paint this is some Republican witch hunt. My question for you is what if this were a Republican president, do you trust him with such unilateral power to kill an American citizen?

To be honest I would expect many questions on this new technology and some guidelines set, thoughtfully without politilization for the cameras. Yes even with law enforcement agencies also. No, doesn't matter what party is in power we do have to have protocols and policy in place as a balance to how this new technology will affect how we go forward not just as foreign policy but domestic as well.

I never characterized this as a republican witch hunt, and cited what the republican congressman from Michigan said yesterday. He was briefed about all the drone strikes according to him,and was comfortable with the results. This is a big deal, a new toy, and its been run out very slowly for 4 years to the public, and even to some in congress, so no matter who leaked it the timing is no coincidence to me and the intentions in my mind was to make this the main talking points for this hearing.

Gathering information with an open mind and not getting caught up in the politics and rhetoric of the cameras is my challenge.

Then it's confirmed that the President leaked this . This puts Brennan in a positive light in my book. Much better that this be the focus than some of his statements in the past that made him sound like a jihadist apologist.

Funny how Obama.. got his lace knickers in a knot over reditions... where we went overseas and captured suspects ALIVE and brought them back... thinks its find and dandy if we just go over and kill them instead.

Because according to the text of that memo... there was absolutely you checks and balances or even a goal post requirement before they would just go and murder someone.

Meaning if you have lots of intelligence someone actually DID do something... that would not be nearly as bad as just targeting someone because Obama has a bug up his bum because they wrote something masty about him and there was absolutely no intelligence indicating the individual was a real threat...

Which they Could do as there is no required Bar to reach. I honestly believe Obama is capable of and would order people that oposed him murdered because of his well documented narcisism and disdain for things like the law and the constitution that are too numerous to count and only increasing in numbers.

Hello smoothy:

You demonstrate the right wing apoplexy. You can't decide whether you LIKE killing the enemy more than you HATE Obama. Poor right wingers..

excon

Quote:

---

You can't decide whether you LIKE killing the enemy more than you HATE Obama. Poor right wingers.

---

This is so true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello smoothy:

You demonstrate the right wing apoplexy. You can't decide whether you LIKE killing the enemy more than you HATE Obama. Poor right wingers..

excon

---

I'm fine with killing the enemy, I'm fine with drone strikes on real and known enemies... I oppose a man like Obama arbitrarily being allowed to decide on his own who we should kill without any proof.

That memo requires NO proof the person they intend to kill ever did anything... or even plans to do anything... Obama can just emerge for his opium den or reading his chicken entrails and decide who to kill.

Particularly since Obama thinks it's a violation of their rights to grab them in a Rendition, to find out if they are who we think and find out what they know... but its not a violation of their rights just to arbitrarily kill them.

Hello again, NK:

Right wingers are a funny sort. They complain, and complain about Obama NOT being transparent... But, when he IS, they call it a leak..

excon

No, we just understand the definition of transparency.

Seems to me after watching the Brennan confirmation hearings the process of transparency is opening up. Funny how you guys want others to change while you don't have too. Just an observation, no knock(?).

Glad most of us agree that Americans that work for the enemy in foreign lands can be eliminated if no other course of action is viable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello smoothy:

You demonstrate the right wing apoplexy. You can't decide whether you LIKE killing the enemy more than you HATE Obama. Poor right wingers..

excon

---

Just demonstrates that the President can get something right /

Hello tal:

I'm conflicted.

I'm a STAUNCH Constitutionalist, AND a veteran of war. I LOVE that we kill our enemy WITHOUT putting our sons and daughters in harms way. The question before us, though, is an American citizen, who has ALLIED himself with our enemy, ENTITLED to civil rights.

I say yes/no.

excon

I say hell NO!! Action speak louder than words and this fellow in Yemen was a leader of the enemy. As are those guys in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Algeria, Syria, and a whole lot of places where gun toting criminals do bad things to good people.

Include the armed nut in California to that list while I am at it. I am not conflicted at all and they better get George Zimmerman too. Maybe not with a hellfire missile fired from a drone, HEHEHE, but get 'em.

Yeah I got a list too and checkin' it twice.

Well I actually understand Ex's concern. With this POTUS... telling La Raza who the enemy is,and Big sis saying righties are domestic terrorists ;the President bringing a drone to a knife fight is a valid concern.

I approve the policy for the extremely limitted application that the memo cites. It was almost written exlusively for the target it was used on. I'll take future applications into consideration on their merit.

I agree Tom, but worrying about the Prez droning his political opponents is a stretch, amusing but a stretch, as he seems content to use his bully pulpit against you guys. I think congress will be a lot more involved now and ask plenty of questions.

A warrant for some strikes may be coming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, NK:

Right wingers are a funny sort. They complain, and complain about Obama NOT being transparent... But, when he IS, they call it a leak..

excon

---

And incidentally... HE didn't release that memo... it was leaked by someone in the inside. HUGE difference.