Skip to main content

Originally posted to Comics on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 02:50 PM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Expect a visit from the GOS Drone Patrol at any (9+ / 0-)

    moment...

    “In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.” Terry Pratchett

    by 420 forever on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 03:01:59 PM PST

  •  If only the post office were as well funded (12+ / 0-)

    as the drone programs.

    What's wrong with America? I'll tell you. Everything Romney said was pre-chewed wads of cud from Republicans from the last 30 years and yet he managed thru a combination of racism and selling the (false) hope of riches to get 47% of the national vote.

    by ontheleftcoast on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 03:08:08 PM PST

    •  Absentee ballots (0+ / 0-)

      are sent via the not-for-profit Post Office.  Do you want to give your absentee ballot to a business whose interests might conflict with your vote?

      The Feds use Zip Codes to designate disaster areas and define benefits. What alternative system is there?

      Think hard.   Who profits from taking away a successful operating system we've spent billions on, that we already use and own collectively, which provides the government and the citizen a secure means of communication shielded from the need to skim money towards profits?

      Profiteers and tyrants.
      Who then rent us back use of the postal service we once owned. At the price the new owners demand.

      Jesus died to save you from Yahweh.

      by nolagrl on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 07:03:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Drones are 24/7/365 (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gooderservice, zinger99, foresterbob

    My local post office is 5 days a week (soon), 8:15 - 12:15 and 3-5 pm. Hmmm.

  •  It's a War OF Terror, drones fit right in. (8+ / 0-)

    Dick Cheney and Ted Nugent approve.  

    "The Global War OF Terror is a justification for U.S. Imperialism. It must be stopped."

    by BigAlinWashSt on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 03:16:11 PM PST

  •  Wait, does that mean only terrorists (5+ / 0-)

    who happen to be US citizens hiding out in Yemen will get mail now???

    I see what you did there.

    by GoGoGoEverton on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 03:19:38 PM PST

  •  Just today the Defense Department announced (5+ / 0-)

    the creation of a new award, the Distinguished Warfare Medal, to be awarded to drone pilots and others for "extraordinary achievement".

    “Perhaps the most 'spiritual' thing any of us can do is simply to look through our own eyes, see with eyes of wholeness, and act with integrity and kindness.” Jon Kabat-Zinn

    by DaNang65 on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 03:21:21 PM PST

  •  guardian-uk re (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gooderservice, shaharazade

    There is no Article II power which says the Executive can violate the Constitution.--@Hugh * Addington's Perpwalk: TRAILHEAD of Accountability for Bush-2 Crimes.

    by greenbird on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 03:48:04 PM PST

  •  comment #28 echoes my thoughts: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shaharazade, LaEscapee
    For those keeping track, the wallet was found a few days back in San Diego, turned over to police, and then magically recovered a second time in a house that was so charred fire crew couldn't enter for hours due to heat. Clearly this ID has the same protective coating as the 9/11 hijacker's passports.

    These thoughts are confusing though. I'll just take the government's word. They seem honest enough about these kinds of things.

    re Dorner at guardian-uk.

    There is no Article II power which says the Executive can violate the Constitution.--@Hugh * Addington's Perpwalk: TRAILHEAD of Accountability for Bush-2 Crimes.

    by greenbird on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 03:57:46 PM PST

    •  another: comment #7. (4+ / 0-)
      @024601 - Exactly.

      To quote Pogo, "That strains my credulies..."

      Body scorched to "burnt remains" but brand new thin wallet intact? Christ, who do they think is going to fall for this?

      Just as disturbing is the casual blather we "hope" this is the guy. Hope? You just scorched a cabin and killed a person; you jolly well better do more than hope that at least it is the suspect. Since when do we casually dismiss the possibility that we've killed an innocent person?

      Wait...don't answer that. Since we opened fire on a truck of women who bore no resemblance whatsoever (starting with their gender) to the suspect, to say nothing of launching a slew of illegal wars, I think we can safely say the question of killing innocents is rhetorical.

      There is no Article II power which says the Executive can violate the Constitution.--@Hugh * Addington's Perpwalk: TRAILHEAD of Accountability for Bush-2 Crimes.

      by greenbird on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 04:00:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  If I were LAPD brass, (0+ / 0-)

      that two-wallet issue would concern me somewhat, and I probably wouldn't sleep well until the DNA results are in hand.  

      The wisdom of my forebears ... Two wise people will never agree. Man begins in dust and ends in dust — meanwhile it's good to drink some vodka. A man studies until he's seventy and dies a fool.

      by Not A Bot on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 05:21:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  laugh along with me. (0+ / 0-)

    at CounterPunch.

    The State of the Union Amidst the Ashes of Extrajudicial Death:
    The Execution of Christopher Dorner

    There is no Article II power which says the Executive can violate the Constitution.--@Hugh * Addington's Perpwalk: TRAILHEAD of Accountability for Bush-2 Crimes.

    by greenbird on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 04:09:54 PM PST

    •  rings a bell ... (0+ / 0-)

      from something learned as a Gulf Watcher ... i just can't pinpoint the device.

      ... for those of us listening to the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department radio frequency, there was little question what had occurred. Nearly a half hour prior, officers had referred to “going ahead with the plan with the burner,” with another adding that the plan was to “back the Bear down and deploy the burner through the turret.” (Live audio during the preceding shootout seems to confirm this intention). Soon, the message was straightforward and expected: “Seven burners have deployed and we have a fire.” No surprised tones, no suggestion that the fire be extinguished.

      There is no Article II power which says the Executive can violate the Constitution.--@Hugh * Addington's Perpwalk: TRAILHEAD of Accountability for Bush-2 Crimes.

      by greenbird on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 04:19:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Where is the injustice? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mark Mywurtz, kefauver

    Apparently the author of this comic is unaware that soldiers kill people in the opposing army without a court order or due process.

    There are many excellent films that could show him what war looks like.

    •  Apparently you're unaware that's in regards to (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SethRightmer, PhilJD, JesseCW

      the "operations of the land forces"... and not by selecting the individual to be the target first.

      And, when soldiers kill people who are not involved in the "operations of the land forces" (see: My Lai) there's meant to be review. THAT is your due process. Cold comfort to the corpses... but the repercussions are meant to keep the triggers in check. Much like at the very least review and repercussions should keep the executive in check (well, that and Article 3 Section 3 for citizens instead of those pesky brown "persons"*)... except, well, I see by your facile disembling that you'd rather this not be the case.

      *And, for them, even little things like: the airspace of a neutral sovereign power being inviolate, abstaining from strikes you can not ASSURE will discriminate against civilian targets when away from the operations of land forces (read: wedding parties, cafes), and military aircraft not to be under the command of a civilian (read: CIA)... unless, of course, you want to state up front that you have no respect for international law and believe not only that the President shouldn't either but that people can't call him out the same.

      •  Every person killed in war has been selected (0+ / 0-)

        You are grasping at straws because you know that you don't have a leg to stand on.

        Due process is not EVER required for killing legitimate military targets when the Congress has authorized military force. That is the fact you keep trying to squirm out of.

        Of course, that raised the question of who is a legit military target. ANY member of the opposing military force, whether a general or his driver or a mechanic, is a legitimate military target when the Congress has authorized military force.

        Was Hitler a legitimate military target? Of course he was. Were Iraqi forces retreating from Kuwait? Of course they were. Was Osama bin Laden a legitamate military target? Of course he was.

        But... what if Osama bin Laden was a US citizen? He would still have been a legitimate target.

        US citizen doesn't exempt you from military sanctions when you have joined a force that has declared war on the United States!

        And, if you read the Constitution very carefully, you will see that the constitutional protection of equal protection under the law applies EQUALLY to US citizens and non-US citizens alike!

        •  Just... no. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JesseCW

          Firstly, because the "legitimate military target" part IS PART OF THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW... and unless you have that as the foundation able to be reviewed the rest of your argument is a steaming pile...

          You know, because according to the 4th Geneva conventions that would be assassination and a "grave breach".

          I'll put it another way, you can bomb the pentagon but not marthas vineyard... no matter who you hope is in attendance at the time.

          Secondly, that STILL does not override internatinal law (you can NOT target your "LMT" if it involves 1) violating the sovereign airspace of a neutral power 2) being unable to, while away from the operations of land forces, discrimate the target from civilians 3) the use of aircraft under the command of a civilian... BUT I understand I'm needing to repeat myself due to your utter lack of reading comprehension)

          And thirdly... Sure, the constitution applies to all persons... I SAID THAT (by refering to the bit that applied to citizens only, as compared to the rest of it inconveiniently, for you and your ilk, applying to pesky brown persons (the pesky part is me being snide by the way, in case you're too dense to figure even that out). Except the parts where, by definition, it could only apply to citizens. Like treason. Hard for an Australian, say, to commit treason against the U.S. But I've figured you're not going to let a little thing like reading comprehension get in your way...

          ...which, by the way, you still haven't (because you can't) cover how the executive gets to ignore by designating anyone to who it would otherwis apply an enemy combatant and summarily executing them with no review.

          •  Legit military target is from Geneva conventions (0+ / 0-)

            ...not the constitution.

            Nothing else you said is even close to true. IF you are a member of an enemy military force, you are a legitimate military target. END OF STORY.

            By your foolish definition, Hitler was not a legit military target. By you foolish definition, OBL was not a legit military target.

            Indeed, by your foolish definition no one killed in either WWII or the first Gulf war was a legitimate target simply because NONE of the targets where bombs were targeted were afforded due process under law.

            Because the due process clause applies equally to US citizens and non-US citizens EXACTLY ALIKE, logic requires that you cannot use it to suggest that it provides some blanket shield to US citizens who join Al Qaeda while they are at war with us.

            •  There are ample discriptions of what constitute (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JesseCW

              valid military targets... and members of the military do NOT fit when they are away from "the operations of the land forces" and near "Any bombardment of cities, towns, villages, habitations and building which are not situated in the immediate vicinity of the operations of the land forces"...

              Not to mention the 4th Geneva conventions.

              Or that I've explained that the due process of law means, at the very least REVIEW to determine if the target was appropriate... (see: My Lai... because accoding to YOU My Lai was just fine... see why I call you and your ilk abhorrent?)

              But by now you've made it apparent you're either too dense or permicious for that to matter.

              Nor are you apparently capable of following to arguments at once.

              Firstly the IL issues.

              Secondly, those aside, CITIZENS have an extra protection in what is REQUIRED to charge with treason.

              And as that protections exists AND was explicitely a check on the power of the executive... you CAN'T just give them another designation and have them summarily executed.

              They die in a strike on an otherwise legitimate military target? No foul. They die in battle from artillery emplacements exchaging fire or a melee in a fox hole? No foul.

              You send a drone to kill SPECIFICALLY them? You've just committed an unconstitutional act.

              YOU. CAN. NOT. END. RUN. AROUND. ARTICLE 3 SECTION 3.

              Provide two witnesses to the same overt act or screw off and hope they die in a battle.

              And don't be so abhorrent as to defend anyone for doing otherwise.

              Especially don't attack someone for bringing the subject to light while not possessing the meanest modicum of understanding yourself beyond jingoistic bullcrap.

              •  What a pity that your grasp is so so shallow (0+ / 0-)

                We dropped bombs on German forces wherever they were found. We drop bombs on Al Qaeda wherever they are found.

                The operation of land forces is anywhere they are conducting training, troop movement, resupply, planning or organization.

                Where is the due process for members of the German army or Iraqi army or Al Qaeda who found themselves the target of a drone strike?

                I will tell you where: When the Congress took the deliberative action of authorizing military action against a hostile military force at war with the United States.

                It is not necessary to charge someone with treason to conduct military strikes against that person! Are you insane?

                All the persons killed by drone strikes were "killed in a foxhole". 1. They were members of a hostile military force at war with the United States. 2. Killing them served a military purpose. 3. Strikes were conducted with due care for the avoidance of non-combatant casualties. 4. These drone strikes were exactly like an air craft over Kuwait seeing a legitimate target and killing it.

                What is it you don't get about war? War is death. The Executive is not allowed to kill anyone it wants, but only those whom the Congress has authorized war making against.

                And Article 3, Section 3 never prohibited the carrying out of war. That is your fantasy, one that cannot withstand the fact that the Constitution explicitly recognizes the Congress' power to declare war and the President's power to carry it out as commander in chief.

                I will belittle you, sir. Because you are showing the weak reasoning skills of any Fox News apologist.

                •  Under the Sep18 AUMF the Unitary Executive can (0+ / 0-)

                  declare ANYONE to be related to 9/11 AND NEVER HAS TO PROVE IT (shove that due process of law where the sun don't shine) it can subsequently summarily execute any citizen by declaring them such.

                  As there's a VERY specific crime that anyone who'd they'd target this way ALSO has to be guilty of... and yet, with this ability would NEVER need two have two witnesses to present against them...

                  It is unconstitutional on its face.

                  YOU COULD BE DECLARED AN "ENEMY COMBATANT" UNDER THE SEP18 AUMF, SUMMARILY EXECUTED, AND THERE WOULD BE N REVIEW.

                  Doesn' that chill you? If it doesn't "because it would never be used that way"... SCREW OFF, BECAUSE THE FACT IS IT CAN BE.

                  Were they conducting "conducting training, troop movement, resupply, planning or organization." at the cafe or wedding party? You couldn't know, and neither could the commander of the drone... which is why they were requierd to ABSTAIN.

                  Did you read the link provided? ARE YOU DAFT? IT SPECIFICALLY OUTLINED THE TIMES A  STRIKE MUST BE ABSTAINED AGAINST A "PARAGRAPH 2" TARGET.

                  Weddings and cafes fit in there. BTW.

                  My what a facile yet mendacious little mind you are.

                  •  Congressional authorization is your due process (0+ / 0-)

                    And that is ALL the due process members of a hostile military force at war with the United States get before they are killed.

                    That is what makes it war. As opposed to the rules police must follow.

                    With regard to the so called wedding party, the military presumably saw a large movement of people, including known hostiles and drew their own conclusions.

                    That is what makes it war. No court reviews before you take lethal action.

                    Under your theory, the military operation that resulted in killing Bin Laden was illegal. Under your theory he can be actively planning attacks against the United States and our citizens abroad and... so sorry, he is immune from military attack.

                    That is bullshit. And you know it.

                    In fact, it is prima facia evidence of your dishonest intent here.

                    •  Invading Pakistani airspace? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      JesseCW

                      They could have legally shot the helicopters down.

                      That answers your question on the legality of the raid.

                      Just because the result was feel good and America is the biggest bully so what's Pakistan going to do? (perhaps a little embarrasment there, too)

                      No dishonest intent here. Want to see a world in which the President (any future one, just not the one you happen to like now) can declare ANYONE, even a citizen living inside the states an enemy combatant under the AUMF and have them summarily executed.

                      That you either will not admit that is what you are arguing for, or can't see it (or refuse to believe it would happen) IS evidence of either a pernicious mind, a facile one (or one clawing against the dissonance).

                      •  Time for a new political party (0+ / 0-)

                        The idiots who think killing Bin Laden was illegal Party.

                        OBL was the member of a hostile military force at war with the United States and a legitimate military target under the international laws of war.

                        And it would have made no difference if Bin Laden were an American citizen. Citizens and non-citizens have the same rights under the US Constitution, except for the right to vote.

                        •  The same one as the "Dresden was a war crime" (0+ / 0-)

                          party you ignorant and specious fool?

                          Actually, at least killing OBL achieved some good.

                          Just because your government has done something, gotten away with it, and you think the outcome was good...

                          Does not mean what was done was legal.

                          Wait until the actors are reversed some day, and you will be screaming your indignanty...

                          But once again, no, just because I disagree with the President on THE ISSUE OF DRNOE STRIKES AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS. Doesn't mean there needs to be a new party. Only a mendacious and highly pernicious actor would argue any such thing.

      •  The laws of war as applied to Al Qaeda (0+ / 0-)

        Al Qaeda is a hostile military force at war with the United States.

        The US and every sovereign state may attack military forces which have declared war on the United States.

        Every person who chooses to join Al Qaeda is a legitimate military target.

        Air strike have been part of military operations since WWI.

        Under the Geneva Conventions, US military forces have an obligation to use due care in minimizing non-combatant casualties. However, no eliminating all non-combatant casualties is neither required nor even possible.

        The Geneva Conventions also require that US military forces treat their prisoners taken by the military humanely (not torture them). Under this administration, acts of torture have been ended, as well as illegal "extraordinary renditions".

        •  So much wrong, so little time. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PhilJD, triv33, JesseCW, gooderservice

          Firstly, there's some debate that AQ can rise to the stature (now, if ever) to be considered a non state entity able to be considered a party to a conflict... but even if we grant that, the following apply:

          http://www.icrc.org/...

          No strikes in neutral territories:

          Art. 40. Belligerent military aircraft are forbidden to penetrate into the jurisdiction of a neutral State.
          No CIA control:
          Art. 14. A military aircraft must be under the command of a person duly commissioned or matriculated military rolls of the State; the crew must be exclusively military.
          No firing at weddings parties/cafes:
          3. Any bombardment of cities, towns, villages, habitations and building which are not situated in the immediate vicinity of the operations of the land forces, is forbidden. Should the objectives specified in paragraph 2 be so situated that they could not be bombed but that an undiscriminating bombardment of the civil population would result therefrom, the aircraft must abstain from bombing;
          Don't try and tell me the wedding party was in the immediate vicinity of the operations of the land forces (this does not simply include the presence of members of the land forces BUT, RATHER, THEIR ACTIVE MILITARY OPERATIONS... which is why you're oh so wrong about assassination).

          But, once you brush up on your reading comprehension, and get sick of being oh so wrong while being oh so facile... perhaps, if you ever intended to contribute meaningfully, you can come back with an angle that noone of your ilk has yet provided that I, or others, haven't shut utterly to pieces over and over.

          •  Countries which shield combatants are not neutral (0+ / 0-)

            There is no safe haven for belligerent forces.

            "Vicinity of land forces" is anywhere Al Qaeda is conducting training, organization, planning.

            Have you not even heard of WWII? Do you want to say every bombing in WWII was or would be illegal under the Geneva conventions?

            No matter how you squirm, you cannot avoid the fact that Al Qaeda declared war on the United States and made war on the United States.

            And the Geneva conventions is not a shield to protect them from counter-attack.

            •  Yes, Dresden was a war crime. Lucky the allies won (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JesseCW

              Not every bombing. But they CAN be.

              As to "safe haven for beliigerent forces"... you know I've done this dance, right?

              You DO know a neutral counrty can allow belligerent officers in their territory the right to roam freely on their parole not to leave without permission? And doing so does NOT violate their neutrality.

              I provided the relevent link & quotes.. I am not the one squirming to defend an indefensible policy, legally or morally.

              All other considerations aside (whether AQ can be considered to have the attributes of a non state actor, etc):

              CIA command drones. Illegal.
              Fire at cafes/wedding parties. Illegal.
              Enter sovereign neutral airspace. Illegal.

              No wriggle room for YOUR abhorrent squirming. Your either ignorant or pernicious defending of breaches of international law. And Ignorance should be out given the explanations provided.

              •  You have no points (0+ / 0-)

                Just endless repetition of your talking points.

                If you had some understanding of international law, you might be worth debating, but sadly you are stuck repeating ideas like "al Qaeda can hide in country X and you can't make war on them".

                Bullcrap, sir.

                •  You indeed can. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  JesseCW

                  You can declare war on the country.

                  Or, it is "possible" as hashed out in this dance with Armando, that you can send ground forces in to deal with NON OFFICERS who are not being detained by the neutral power.

                  But airstrikes and attacking officers who are free to roam on their parole not to leave without permission?

                  International law is clear. Hague 1907. You get to screw off. Of course American has a veto on the SC, so it really depends hwo big of an incident people want to make of it before any repercussions occur.

                  This is "my understanding" of international law.

                  http://www.icrc.org/...

                  It shall decide whether officers can be left at liberty on giving their parole not to leave the neutral territory without permission.
                  It grossly outstrips whatever jingoistic dross that is swilling around inside your head. Run along now.
                •  Bin Laden was not "on parole" (0+ / 0-)

                  Al Qaeda forces are not "on parole".

                  They are and will be killed so long as Al Qaeda is involved in the planning of lethal attacks against the United States.

                  You posit that the US can send in ground forces to take such persons.

                  1) There is no distinction between this action and an airborne strike in that both involve the use of projectile weapons.

                  2) There is no distinction between this action and an airborne strike because in both cases there is a risk of non-combatant casualties and an obligation to use due care in preventing non-combatant casualties.

                  •  How would you know? Seriously, maybe a Pakistani (0+ / 0-)

                    official has given him permission to be there.

                    THAT aside (becuase, see: biggest bully + a bit embarassed... they' never admit it)

                    If he WASN'T on parole... the laws only let you violate sovereignty if the sovereign nation WONT do anything about the balligerant force in their territory. (which, as established, could, if they wanted to say fuck you to your position on the legality, simply be to parole him)

                    Were they informed and given the opportunity to meet their obligations?

                    No?

                    OOOPS.

                    VIOLATED SOVEREIGN AIRPSACE OF A NEUTRAL POWER.

                    Now, I know we're never going to let a pesky little thing like a oft violated international law (see: every spy plane ever) get in the way of getting OBL... but instead of rejoicing in that it was done and blithely dismissing HOW... perhaps some intrspection, I know it might hurt... OBL was fairly unique. Just because his raid was "worth" the violations... does not mean they should be accepted in any other situation.

            •  Which is why Allied forces were justified (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              triv33, JesseCW, poligirl, gooderservice

              in leveling Zurich and Oslo during WWII.

              Oh wait

              Countries which shield combatants are not neutral

              When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

              by PhilJD on Thu Feb 14, 2013 at 05:39:45 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  And, CIA are sworn in just as military officers (0+ / 0-)

            CIA take an oath to the Constitution just like military officers. And they operate under the authority of the Commander and Chief and follow his orders as Commander and Chief.

            CIA officers are part of the military rolls for the purpose of the Geneva convention.

            •  DO. NOT. MAKE. ME. LAUGH. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JesseCW

              The CIA is civilian. It does NOT fall under DoD, it has no ranks, and to make a complete mockery out of you their own website has a MILITARY TRANSITION page... how you can earn extra if you were in the military and were to transition to working for them.

              In short, screw off you steaming pile of disingenuity.

              •  CIA officers take an oath to the Constitution (0+ / 0-)

                CIA officers take an oath to the Constitution.
                Civilians do not.
                Game over.

                •  So do congress and judges. (0+ / 0-)

                  CIVILIANS.

                  CIA do not recite this:

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                  You ignorant ignorant little fool.

                  But all I had to do is show other civilians take an oath to the constitution.

                  Also, not DoD.

                  Also, not required to abide by the USMJ.

                  NOT MILITARY.

                  But go on, keep making an utter god damn fool of yourself.

                  •  If CIA officers are violating Geneva Conventions.. (0+ / 0-)

                    If CIA officers are violating the Geneva Conventions, then why don't you arrest them and bring them to trial at The Hague?

                    You are more than a fool.
                    You are a Republican tool.

                    "I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

                    Every CIA officer takes this oath to the Constitution. And their authority to commit military operations flows from the Commander and Chief, who orders these military operations.

                    There is only one source of legitimate military authority in the United States.

                    •  Becuase I do not have the authority to do so you (0+ / 0-)

                      puerile little prat?

                      And there ARE proceedings against the drone strikes in the U.N. But America has a veto, so, always legal as long as the President (or a SC member) does it.

                      And no, I'm not Republican tool. I'm HONEST.

                      I am the only one in this exchange that can say that.

                      I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. [So help me God.][62]
                      THAT IS THE OATH CONGRESS HAS TO TAKE YOU RIDICULOUS LITTLE MAN.

                      ARE YOU CLAIMING, ON THIS BASIS, THAT CONGRESS ARE IN THE MILITARY.

                      No, you are a confused and afraid little man at best, and an abhorrent and pernicious apologist if beign polite otherwise.

                      I support the President on many things, and agree with republicans on, oh, ABOUT ZERO.

                      I suport gun control, environmentalism, the right to choose, treating those who may not have followed all the rules on entering the country, and especially their children, fairly, think Reid should have changed the filibuster rules, am appalled at TBTF and especially its offshoot TBTP (prosecute)... I'm about as progressive as they come.

                      DEFENDING THE PRESIDENTS FLAGRANT VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND INTERNATIONAL LAW ON:

                      **THIS ISSUE**

                      DOES NOT MAKE ME A REPUBLICAN TOOL.

                      Your inablity to comprehend the (IL) laws and constitutional issues at stake however... certainly makes you a fool.

                    •  Similar oaths are taken by most Government (0+ / 0-)

                      employees.

                      This is perhaps the weakest of the many weak arguments I've seen you trot out.

                      It's kind of embarrassing to read.

                      income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

                      by JesseCW on Thu Feb 14, 2013 at 09:06:52 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  God must love the stupid... (0+ / 0-)

                      ...because he made you.

                      I said that CIA officers have to take an oath to the Constitution. They do.

                      I quoted the specific oath.

                      You are just now coming to realize that I have cited facts in every instance, and that your pathetic attempt to delegitimize the use of one particular projectile weapon system (drone borne missiles) has led you to an untenable position:

                      That killing Osama Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda is illegal.

                      And that makes you sad. And embarrassed. And angry. I apologize for having publicly humiliated you.

                      But the US will continue to kill Al Qaeda, with all means permitted by the laws of war, Congressional approval and the Constitution, without quarter. Regardless of whom is president. Until they surrender or disband.

                      •  This applies equally well to Jessie and majyqman (0+ / 0-)
                      •  And we pointed out that that oath does NOT define (0+ / 0-)

                        military personnel... because EVEN CONGRESS HAS TO TAKE IT YOU IGNORANT PRAT.

                        CIA is civilian.

                        Though I really don't mine every single instance of you repeating your staggering lack of faculties for every observer to see. It will at least warn them away from the less obvious/more insidious dross you peddle in case a particular istance hasn't drawn the attention of someone with a moment to lable it "steaming pile".

        •  If a Drone Could Blog a Comment... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JesseCW

          ...it would be with your cold and calculating words.  

          Has anyone ever ask you this:
          "Open the pod bay doors, Hal."

          •  War is hell (0+ / 0-)

            There is no way you can sanitize it. We tell our people, who have sworn to obey the Constitution, to kill people without trial.

            That alone should clue people in to the fact that we throw away most of our laws, and societal norms, when we make war.

            •  You, Yoo, Armando, Cheney - you've all got (0+ / 0-)

              the same excuse for trashing the laws of war.

              "Don't hate the war criminals, hate the war".

              income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

              by JesseCW on Thu Feb 14, 2013 at 09:08:06 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  So, let's review (0+ / 0-)

      1. Al Qaeda declared war on the United States and made war on the United States.

      2. The Congress used it's constitutional authority to declare war to pass an Authorization to Use Military Force against Al Qaeda and any organization or nation which provides aide to Al Qaeda, any where in the world.

      3. The President used his constitutional authority as commander and chief to command the armed forces, including CIA officers sworn to the constitution, to make war on Al Qaeda, just as the Congress authorized it to do under the AUMF.

      4. Because Al Qaeda has declared war on the United States, and the Congress has authorized all necessary military force to be used against Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda is a belligerent military force for the purposes of the Geneva Conventions and EVERY member of Al Qaeda is a legitimate military target.

      5. Being a US citizen does not, and has not ever, provided a shield from military strikes if you join a hostile military force at war with the United States.

      6. Because the right to due process applies equally to US citizens and non-US citizens, killing a citizen at war with the United States can no more be a violation of his constitutional due process rights than killing a non-US citizen.

      7. Any state shielding belligerent forces engaged in war cannot be deemed a "neutral state". (Nixon got into trouble with regard to Cambodia because the Congress had not authorized war in that theater.)

      8. While the Geneva conventions require the use of due care in preventing non-combatant casualties, the United States meets that standard and has gone to great lengths to minimize non-combatant casualties.

      9. "Land forces" includes anywhere that Al Qaeda is conducting training, resupply, organization, planning, are traveling or set up camp.

      10. CIA officers are sworn to the Constitution just like military officers and are under the command of the President exercising his authority as commander and chief. They are members of the armed forces for the purposes of the Geneva Conventions.

      In short, opponents of the use of drones are without a leg to stand on. Every drone strike that I am aware of would have been perfectly legitimate under the laws of war had a soldier taken the shot with a rifle.

      The only difference here is that the President has imposed more review over which "drone shots" will be fired than would have been the case for rifle shots.

      The United States has a legitimate right to make war on Al Qaeda, and has conducted this war in accordance with the international rules of war, the Congressionally approved AUMF, and the Constitution.

      Those who oppose drone strikes are trying to make the case that every war is illegitimate. THAT MAY BE TRUE. But that is not what the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions says.

  •  What army whould that (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nada Lemming, PhilJD

    be? The people we drone are 'terrorists', they don't have any army. This is not what war looks like. Criminals have a right to be charged and have due process, it's an old right one established by the Magna Carta.  not bombed burned or killed without the real due process. 15 kids got killed in Afghanistan yesterday by a drone attack is that the army your talking about? Is that what 'war' looks like? Does the US have an opposing army for an enemy? Or just insurgents, jhadists, terrorists, militants, extremist's, Islamofascist's and anybody who want us out of their lands. You should stop watching those war movies they seem to be scaring you with their 'war' propaganda.  

    •  The Congress decides who we are at war with (0+ / 0-)

      Not you, sir. And the Congress has authorized military attacks on Al Qaeda.

      Al Qaeda killed over 3000 American citizens. And we will hunt them down, every last member of this enemy military force.

      And you know what? Being an American citizen didn't protect people who joined the Confederate Army.

      Neither did it provide a shield to those American citizens who joined the German Army during WWII.

      Due process is one of the most important constitutional protections. But only a fool thinks that it applies to lawful military strikes, where the Congress has given its constitutional approval to the conflict.

      Are you that fool, sir?

      •  Drone Policy will be the Downfall of this Admin (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        shaharazade

        Its a long a and slippery slope but Obama will find the bottrom. The ACLU is gearing  up, as are other legal groups to challenge this heinously executive over-reach.

        •  No president can fail to fight Al Qaeda (0+ / 0-)

          Even if Hillary Clinton were president (which I hope will come to pass) she would be killing Al Qaeda. With drones.

          Even if Howard Dean were president, he would be killing Al Qaeda. With drones.

          The alternative to drones is sending in a couple divisions of the Army. That means MORE DEATH of American military and MORE DEATH of civilians.

          Which is irrational, bordering in on the insane.
           

          •  Talk about irrational (0+ / 0-)

            bordering on the insane. How cowardly and nasty to support and believe that this bogus GWOT is anything but what it is, a illegal immoral necon aggressive geopolitical doctrine that reeks of the PNAC and is doing nothing but killing people for profit. It may be sold as keeping us safe but which would be nasty ass want to rule the world regime isn't. You have according to statistics a better chance of being killed by your household appliances then by a terrorist getting you. The alternative is ending this sick excuse for a war.  

  •  Obama can go to hell (0+ / 0-)

    There, I said it. Ban me. Obama and his drones and his wars and his TSA and his NDAA and his corporate giveaways and his Democratic party that stands up for bank bailouts and laughs at us. They can all go to hell.

    I expected change.

    I got George Bush with extra brain cells.

    •  You got health care for all Americans* (0+ / 0-)

      And the creation of the Elizabeth Warren's consumer protection bureau, with its own independent funding, for dessert.

      *Notably, the ACA has its own source of funding also, making it much harder than say, the EPA, for hostile Republicans to control it.

  •  I think I will pass on... (0+ / 0-)

    the Drone Master's Forever Stamp... (it will leave a mark!)

  •  When our Presidents use the Constiution as... (0+ / 0-)

    a General Guideline, instead of upholding the laws of our land and our rights as American Citizens, we have a very Orwellian Future indeed.

    •  Your reading of the Constitution is Orwellian (0+ / 0-)

      This is not a rogue presidential operation, like Iran-Contra.

      The war on Al Qaeda, with all its manifestations, was authorized by the Congress under its power to declare war. And being a US citizen has never shielded one from military sanctions if you join an organization like the German army at war with the United States.

      •  Drone Policy is an Impeachable Offense (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        shaharazade

        You are using nuanced points of legal  interpretation to justify something that is abhorrently wrong. Each point can be refuted so easily. The war on AQ stopped a long time ago, and we do not have a perpetual war on AQ.
        These drones are being used covertly to kill anyone without any oversight from judicial or legislative...it is criminal Executive over-reach.

        You remind me of Segregationist Lawyers in the 50s and 60s who used the the law to keep Jim Crow statutes on the books. Sure, anyone can justify anything using the law...but does it make it right?

        •  Just go ahead and impeach anyone you don't like! (0+ / 0-)

          I have to admit that your approach is not "nuanced". Or based on any sensible legal interpretation either!

          All war is abhorrent. But if the time to end the war on Al Qaeda has come to an end, then the Congress should repeal the AUMF.

          In the meantime, it is not quite right to say that the president can kill anyone under the AUMF.

          The correct statement is that, under the existing authorization of Congress, the president can kill anyone he believes is a member of Al Qaeda.

          If you don't like that, then you must not approve of the fact that soldiers can kill people whom they determine are enemy forces without getting a court order first.

          That's why we call it war.

  •  Jeremy Scahill Documentary "Dirty Wars" (0+ / 0-)

    If you view the recently released documentary by Jeremy Scahill, "Dirty Wars" you will get an idea of how effective our Drones are at sowing the hate of moslems against our nation.

  •  Norway wants its Nobel Peace Prize Back... (0+ / 0-)

    Mr President... and while your at it, if you could remove Norwegian Citizens from your Drone Kill list, it would be very appreciated.

  •  Reasons 70% of Americans approve of drone strikes (0+ / 0-)

    1. Al Qaeda declared war on us and made war on us.

    2. This is no rogue President invading Granada or illegally funneling money to the Contras. These operations are authorized by the Congressional AUMF under its constitutional power to declare war.

    3. Killing Al Qaeda with drones saves the lives of men and women in the armed services.

    4. Killing Al Qaeda with drones saves the lives of civilians, as compared to a ground assault and occupation.

    5. Drone strikes are like the use of any other projectile weapon under the international laws of war and Americans trust that the military uses the due care to avoid non-combatant civilian casualties.

    6. The opponents of drone strikes sound like crazy people who think we can't attack a member of a hostile military force seeking refuge in Pakistan.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site