If you're "probably up to no good," President Obama wants to kill you
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
If you're "probably up to no good," President Obama wants to kill you
Since they chanted "Drill, baby, drill!" at the 2008 RNC, maybe they could chant "Kill, baby, kill" at the 2012 DNC when they re-nominate President Obama:
Mr. Obama has placed himself at the helm of a top secret “nominations” process to designate terrorists for kill or capture, of which the capture part has become largely theoretical. He had vowed to align the fight against Al Qaeda with American values; the chart, introducing people whose deaths he might soon be asked to order, underscored just what a moral and legal conundrum this could be.
Mr. Obama is the liberal law professor who campaigned against the Iraq war and torture, and then insisted on approving every new name on an expanding “kill list,” poring over terrorist suspects’ biographies on what one official calls the macabre “baseball cards” of an unconventional war.
It's kind of like that popular game "(Bleep), Marry or Kill" but without the "(Bleep)" or "Marry" part. The Times story at least starts out with something of a pro-Obama spin -- the anguished liberal, blah blah blah -- so it's better to get the straight story on this from Salon's Glenn Greenwald:
[I] want specifically to highlight this one vital passage about how the Obama administration determines who is a “militant.” The article explains that Obama’s rhetorical emphasis on avoiding civilian deaths “did not significantly change” the drone program, because Obama himself simply expanded the definition of a “militant” to ensure that it includes virtually everyone killed by his drone strikes. Just read this remarkable passage:
Mr. Obama 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.
Counterterrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good. “Al Qaeda is an insular, paranoid organization — innocent neighbors don’t hitchhike rides in the back of trucks headed for the border with guns and bombs,” said one official, who requested anonymity to speak about what is still a classified program.
This may be the ultimate example of something we've seen a lot in the last three and a half years, which we'll call, "If President Bush did this, liberals would be outraged." For what little it's worth, I'm fairly outraged. I do certainly approve of the raid and killing of Osama bin Laden and believe there was a time when al-Qaeda was stronger and more of a threat that these kind of attacks could be justified with solid intelligence.
But today the harm that's caused by raining death from machines in the sky down onto far too many civilians -- including someone's son, brother, or father who wasn't "up to no good" at all -- vastly outweighs any good. Righteous anger over the killing of civilians creates new terrorists faster than the killing of any old ones. As for the morally indefensible position that any male killed in such an attack is "probably up to no good," isn't the Obama administration saying the EXACT same thing that George Zimmerman said about Trayvon Martin?
Ponder that for a moment.
One more revolting thing is the news that a political adviser, David Axelrod, sat in on some of these meetings at which it was decided who would live and die.
If Karl Rove had done that (which he did, by the way). liberals would have been outraged.
UPDATE: Actually, the similarity with Zimmerman is even greater than I first thought. What he said to the Sanford police dispatcher was that Trayvon Martin "looks like he's up to no good." Thank God Zimmerman didn't have drones, huh?
With all due respect to the lovely freedom and women loving people of the Middle East but who cares about the drones on the other side of the world. What should concern the people of this country is the now authorized use of drones to "watch" American citizens. We are FAR BEYOND what used to be considered basic privacy violations. We submit to sexual assault and / or radiation scans to travel within our own borders, we accept and even encourage routine traffic stops turning into the destruction of the 4th Amendment and now we will have remote control airplanes flying overhead watching and documenting American interactions. All in the name of protection or keeping us safe or whatever talking point both sides choose to use for their own violations of American life. Maybe some people do need to feel daddy is protecting them but to willingly surrender your personal liberty/freedom for a false sense of safety is... unAmerican to say the least.
Both sides do it, there is no difference and we all sit here and take it like the sheep we have become. Does our generation defeat the Emperor of Japan or the Germans? No way. But hey, I heard that Britney Spears has a topless photo floating around the internet, maybe I will search that out...— phillyjeffsr- Will, I give you credit for honesty on this one. If President Romney or Santorum or Fill-In-The-Blank was getting away with this, you'd be right to be horrified.
As the scales fall from your eyes... maybe people of good faith can meet half way?— RandlBackScrambln - Obamaa+ is air-raiding villages and shredding the Constitution. He must be defeated.— Thoughtful&concernedvoter
- It's not like we haven't been trying to warn you. Do you know there is a 17 year old girl on that list?— Col. Nathan R. Jessup
- I'm actually going to give credit to Will for calling Obama to account on this. I also have to give credit to Obama. After reading the NYT article, I was pleasantly surprised that Obama was so willing to be involved and to be the final decider in not only who makes the list but in the execution of the kill order. For a president who is so sensitive to how things play out politically, he is putting his entire presidency on the line by doing so.— General Turgidson
- No one should be suprised at the President's actions in the middle east. When running in 2008 he said the invasion of Iraq was a mistake and had taken our attention off the terrorists. He said he would end the war in Iraq and concentrate on Afghanistan and Al Queda. He bhas ended our combat mission in Iraq, increased efforts in Afghanistan, but most importantly - from day one he substantially increased the governments efforts at getting Al Queda. He has done exactly what he said he would do if elected. Al Queda did 911 and we finally have a President with the will, focus, and determination to take all necessary overt and covert actions to get Al Queda, or any other terrorist organization that is a threat. Clinton tried his long distance cruise missles; Bush placed hundreds of thousand of boots in a war in the wrong country and said he didn't know where Bin laden was, and didn't care - it didn't matter. Well finally we have a President the stones, and a necessary coolness, to order the inteliigence and military to use the rescources and expertise they prosess to get at the source of the threat and eliminate it, up close with special ops and drones honing in on vehicles or specific locations with subperb success. These common sense, efficient, effective actions should have been under taken under Clinton & Bush. Obviously I support these actions and hope they continue.— ElecFact
- The line was crossed with the Patriot Act and the TSA - that showed Americans don't care about rights for anyone, including themselves. That was the test case, and Big Brother passed with flying colors. Anyone who thought that the government, once getting these powers, wouldn't expand on them was naive, and anyone who thinks that Romney will do any less is also naive - vote R or D, it's the same, because people don't care. Al-Quaeda won the war; they changed our way of life for as far as anyone can see. Enjoy!— what is truth?
Comment removed.- Comment removed.
- Will - As long as you are not riding in the same SUV as a known Al Queda operative, or in the same known terrorist haven or camp in Yemen, or planning on stuffing some explosive in your shorts, that you or any other non-terrorist have to worry about a drone descending on your vehicle or a seal team knocking on your door. As far as the possibility that a few civilians may be hit - I believe the US has subperbly refined it's ability to hit those that should be hit as best as possible.— ElecFact
- obviously not to this extent, but did you know that the FAA is paving the way for armed drones in the US? Fairfax Cty Va, and several agencies in Tx are considering armed drones for law enforcement purposes — Tom813
- RE: But today the harm that's caused by raining death from machines in the sky down onto far too many civilians -- including someone's son, brother, or father who wasn't "up to no good" at all -- vastly outweighs any good.
Good thing Will wasn't around in WWII with tactics of mass bombing and burnings of German cities, or nuking 2 cities in Japan? All of Europe would be speaking German and hundreds of thousand of American would have died invading Japan. Apply some relatively here. These are surguical strikes, not the raining of bombs.— ElecFact - Tom813:
My support of use of drones naturally does not extend to domestic use of armed drones for "law enforcement purposes". Obviously someone in state or local governmt in Fairfax, or Virginia and Texas is just plain nuts— ElecFact - This article confirms my belief that Obama was the right choice in 2008. He got us out of Iraq and focused on decimating AQ, the REAL threat in the ME.
Contrast that to Mittens who doesn't even have the stones to challenge Trump on his birther conspiracy theories. Mittens can't even stand up to the kooks in his own party let alone AQ, Iran or North Korea.— The Fundamentals of the Economy are Fine - you forgot lolz... — Tom813
- Andrew Sullivan
- Blinq
- Blogorrhea
- Blonde Sagacity
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- James Taranto
- ScrappleFace
- The Corner
- Buzzmachine
- Eat the Press
- Editor and Publisher
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Media Bloodhound
- Mickey Kaus
- Pressthink
- Romenesko
- The Inksniffer
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Above Average Jane
- BlankBaby
- Citizen Mom
- Keystone Blog
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- Phawker
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Philly Future
- Phillyblog
- Phillyist
- The Clog
- The Next Mayor
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Young Philly Politics
- Afro-Netizen
- All-Spin Zone
- Atrios
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- Booman Tribune
- CorrenteWire
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- iFlipFlop
- Kiko's House
- MyDD
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Rowhouse Logic
- Slacktivist
- Suburban Guerilla
- Tattered Coat
- upyernoz
- AmericaBlog
- Andy Borowitz
- BuzzFlash
- Crooks and Liars
- Cursor
- Daily Kos
- David Sirota
- Drudge Report
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Fire Dog Lake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hullabaloo
- Jesus' General
- Jon Swift
- Josh Marshall
- Juan Cole
- Kevin Drum
- Mad Kane
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Oliver Willis
- Raw Story
- Swing State Project
- Talk Left
- Taylor Marsh
- TBogg
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Think Progress
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- A Citizen's Blog
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Beer Leaguer
- Dick Polman
- Phillies Nation
- Philling Station
- Shallow Center
- The 700 Level
- The Good Phight
