"Anwar al-Awlaki had ties to at least three attacks planned or carried out
on U.S. soil. They included the Fort Hood, Texas, shooting that claimed 13 lives
in 2009, a failed attempt to down a Detroit-bound airliner the same year and a
thwarted plot to bomb cargo planes in 2010."I find it odd that
so many on the right are suddenly against targeting terrorists (American or not)
who are engaged in killing Americans.Quite the switch. Purely
partisan motives perhaps?
I find it odd that so many on the left find "enhanced interrogation
techniques" reprehensible, but applaud dropping missiles unannounced from
the sky, which inevitably causes collateral damage. Drone strikes
were widely criticized when President Bush was authorizing them.Quite the switch. Purely partisan motives perhaps?
@AZnewser actually I am not sure joeblow is necessarily representative of
those of us "on the left" while I think most would agree that torture is
wrong, if you slow down and read the article you will see that all the
congressmen and senators that are calling for more oversight and transparency in
the story are democrats not republicans. I for one think there needs to be clear
oversight and where possible more transparency.
Anyone against drones...please see your nearest Army recruiter.
This is the reason why me personally, an individual on the right, am against
Pres. Obama's drone strikes on US citizens while under Pres. Bush I would
have supported them.The Constitution guarantees the due process of all
citizens, a right which can only be waived under specific circumstances. One
such circumstance is participation in open warfare against the US. Under Pres.
Bush this country was waging a War on Terror resulting from the 9/11 attack that
led our country into conflict with terrorists across the world, from Somalia to
the Philippines, with main Theaters of War eventually developing in Iraq and
Afghanistan. At this time, any active affiliates with terrorists could be
considered an active participant in war against America and their right to due
process could be waived and they could be targeted. Under Pres. Obama, this
country is waging regional wars with no admitted connection and the term War on
Terror is not uttered, the conflict is not seen as a worldwide fight. Legally,
Pres. Obama should not be able to waive due process in areas where we are not in
conflict, since he does not consider this a War on Terror.
"So, in addition to Tolstoy's apprehension, is JoeBlow just out there
all alone "blowing in the wind?"Maybe not all alone, but in
a minority.I think targeted drone strikes are far more desirable
than all out ground war. I wish we had taken out Hussein that way. I have no
problem killing anyone who is actively engaged in terror against the US. Makes
no difference if they are US citizens or not.I find that the
problems with this country are caused mostly by Democrats and Republicans.I find that the huge deficit in this country is caused pretty equally by
Democrats and Republicans.Electing either R or D is not an answer to
our problems as both tend to govern in fairly similar manners.Being
an independent who can see both good and bad things done by politicians on both
sides does put me in a minority.Both Bush and Obama are good decent
American who want the best for their country. So, is that
considered "blowing in the wind"?
Just to clarify I am not against drone attacks but I do support clear oversight
and as much transparency as possible. I believe we have the same right to take
out a terrorist (citizen or not) as we do a violent criminal here in the US that
posses a serious threat to life is in a posture that does not allow the safe
apprehension of them and is refusing to give themselves up. Torture on the other
hand is arcane to torturing an alleged bank robber that is already in police
custody because he may or may not have information about a future potentially
violent bank robbery. Not really the same thing.