Skip to main content

View Diary: POTUS Soon to Deliver MAJOR Gitmo/Drone Speech, Months in the Making (47 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The test for me is not confidence in zero (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fou, doroma, ericlewis0, Rogneid, sebastianguy99, FG

    innocent casualties. The test for me (and I believe Obama) is whether the attack is justified in terms of saving lives. How sure are we that there are bad guys there? How bad are they? What are civilian casualties expected to be? Can we wait and do this at another time? And so on. Killing innocents is an ugly business that I know Pres Obama does not enjoy. But we must remember that the result of NOT firing will sometimes be mass American casualties, and that the president has a sworn duty to protect us.

    •  If it's that particular hypothetical, that's one (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RiveroftheWest

      thing.
      But in the war in the Afpak border region, I don't think it's that cut and dried and I don't think they usually know just how imminent an attack is. To some degree, they're profiling from the air. To me, more precision would be more psychologically devastating to al Qaeda.
      Civilian deaths just makes more al Qaeda and makes the Taliban hate us more.

      You can't make this stuff up.

      by David54 on Sat May 18, 2013 at 08:09:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The whole "when we kill them they (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RiveroftheWest, sebastianguy99

        hate us more" meme falls flat with me. I think the small number of actual terrorists that exist would be after us no matter what US policies were. Sure, stationing troops in Lebanon, supporting Israel, attacking with drones, etc. all are things that make them mad. But if we had not one troop in the Middle East and never did anything to them my sense is that we'd still be the devil to fanatics. If we can kill the worst of them with minimal loss of innocent life I'd say that is the least bad option for us (plus, pull out as many troops as possible from the region and never go back).

    •  Actually no. (0+ / 0-)

      The president has a sworn duty to protect the constitution, not us.
      The military swears to protect us.  It's not a distinction without a difference.  Two separate entities, and when the president orders the military to attack, he must do so with his sworn duty in mind.  If he orders an unconstitutional order, it is also incumbent on the military to not obey.  The constitution trumps all.  Or was supposed to.  

      Bad things aren't bad! And anyway, there's mitigation!

      by Nada Lemming on Thu May 23, 2013 at 09:14:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site