An interesting question in regards to the use of drones

[Kevin_Kennedy]

TAPPER: I was just wondering what the — where the moral foundation comes from, the United States objects in the future to an action being taken by China or Russia along these same lines?

Skyrocketing College Tuition and a Precedent on Drones — Today’s Q’s for O’s WH — 6/5/12 - ABC News

I omitted Jay Carney's pointless and ridiculous non-answers to this question, but you can read them at the link if you like. At any rate, what if China, Russia, or Syria used the drone technology in a similar fashion to the United States? What if Putin took it upon himself to review his kill-list every Tuesday and declare people terrorists and then target them for assassination? Does he have the right to do that, or is only the President of the U.S. permitted to do so? We know that Assad blamed the Houla massacre on "terrorists," so should he be permitted to go around indiscriminately killing people he doesn't like with drones? How about China? Chen Guangcheng is now in the U.S., but what if China declared him a "terrorist?" Would they have the right to drone bomb him in New York?

 

[hjmick]

Based on the standards set by our government... I'd have to say why not?

Then again, I am having trouble comprehending the total lack of concern with regard to the government's use of drones domestically...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Based on the standards set by our government... I'd have to say why not?

Then again, I am having trouble comprehending the total lack of concern with regard to the government's use of drones domestically...

Another good question. How long before domestic "terrorists" are getting blown to bits? Will any other casualties be considered combatants as well?

 

[Mad Scientist]

The same govt that conducted "Fast and Furious" is gonna' tell us that they blew up a terrorist on US soil based on secret info that they can't show us because "It's Classified".

I figger they'll blow up a Bank robber first just to get Americans used to it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The same govt that conducted "Fast and Furious" is gonna' tell us that they blew up a terrorist on US soil based on secret info that they can't show us because "It's Classified".

I figger they'll blow up a Bank robber first just to get Americans used to it.

Of course this is all classified, except for what the administration leaks to make itself look tough.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Based on the standards set by our government... I'd have to say why not?

Then again, I am having trouble comprehending the total lack of concern with regard to the government's use of drones domestically...

Another good question. How long before domestic "terrorists" are getting blown to bits? Will any other casualties be considered combatants as well?

You need to get your anti-psychosis meds modified. I don't know if that'll conflict with your hormone-therapy, or not.

Ask your doctor.​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The same govt that conducted "Fast and Furious" is gonna' tell us that they blew up a terrorist on US soil based on secret info that they can't show us because "It's Classified".

I figger they'll blow up a Bank robber first just to get Americans used to it.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The same govt that conducted "Fast and Furious" is gonna' tell us that they blew up a terrorist on US soil based on secret info that they can't show us because "It's Classified".

I figger they'll blow up a Bank robber first just to get Americans used to it.

Of course this is all classified, except for what the administration leaks to make itself look tough.

That's what Porky Limbaugh says, huh??

 

[Wry Catcher]

TAPPER: I was just wondering what the — where the moral foundation comes from, the United States objects in the future to an action being taken by China or Russia along these same lines?

Skyrocketing College Tuition and a Precedent on Drones — Today’s Q’s for O’s WH — 6/5/12 - ABC News

I omitted Jay Carney's pointless and ridiculous non-answers to this question, but you can read them at the link if you like. At any rate, what if China, Russia, or Syria used the drone technology in a similar fashion to the United States? What if Putin took it upon himself to review his kill-list every Tuesday and declare people terrorists and then target them for assassination? Does he have the right to do that, or is only the President of the U.S. permitted to do so? We know that Assad blamed the Houla massacre on "terrorists," so should he be permitted to go around indiscriminately killing people he doesn't like with drones? How about China? Chen Guangcheng is now in the U.S., but what if China declared him a "terrorist?" Would they have the right to drone bomb him in New York?

Ignoring for the moment the slippery slope argument you post, I suspect if an organization such as AQ attacked Putin's Russia the reaction of the Kremlin would be at the minimum similar to the Obama Administrations effort to eradicate the rats in Pakistan.

I don't recall your moral outrage when the Bush Administration sent cruise missiles into urban areas in Iraq in an effort (successfully I should add) to kill the sons of Saddam Hussein. Today one more head of the AQ snake was cut off.

I say Well Done! Why don't you?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

TAPPER: I was just wondering what the — where the moral foundation comes from, the United States objects in the future to an action being taken by China or Russia along these same lines?

Skyrocketing College Tuition and a Precedent on Drones — Today’s Q’s for O’s WH — 6/5/12 - ABC News

I omitted Jay Carney's pointless and ridiculous non-answers to this question, but you can read them at the link if you like. At any rate, what if China, Russia, or Syria used the drone technology in a similar fashion to the United States? What if Putin took it upon himself to review his kill-list every Tuesday and declare people terrorists and then target them for assassination? Does he have the right to do that, or is only the President of the U.S. permitted to do so? We know that Assad blamed the Houla massacre on "terrorists," so should he be permitted to go around indiscriminately killing people he doesn't like with drones? How about China? Chen Guangcheng is now in the U.S., but what if China declared him a "terrorist?" Would they have the right to drone bomb him in New York?

Ignoring for the moment the slippery slope argument you post, I suspect if an organization such as AQ attacked Putin's Russia the reaction of the Kremlin would be at the minimum similar to the Obama Administrations effort to eradicate the rats in Pakistan.

I don't recall your moral outrage when the Bush Administration sent cruise missiles into urban areas in Iraq in an effort (successfully I should add) to kill the sons of Saddam Hussein. Today one more head of the AQ snake was cut off.

I say Well Done! Why don't you?

So you don't have a problem with Putin unilaterally deciding who is or isn't a terrorist, whether they get to live or die, and then drone bombing them and any number of potential innocent civilians? What about Assad? Should he be able to unilaterally decide who is or isn't a terrorist?

I would have been 14 when Bush invaded Iraq, so I'm not surprised you don't recall my moral outrage at the time. However, I can assure you that I opposed the Iraq war from the very beginning.

 

[Warrior102]

TAPPER: I was just wondering what the — where the moral foundation comes from, the United States objects in the future to an action being taken by China or Russia along these same lines?

Skyrocketing College Tuition and a Precedent on Drones — Today’s Q’s for O’s WH — 6/5/12 - ABC News

I omitted Jay Carney's pointless and ridiculous non-answers to this question, but you can read them at the link if you like. At any rate, what if China, Russia, or Syria used the drone technology in a similar fashion to the United States? What if Putin took it upon himself to review his kill-list every Tuesday and declare people terrorists and then target them for assassination? Does he have the right to do that, or is only the President of the U.S. permitted to do so? We know that Assad blamed the Houla massacre on "terrorists," so should he be permitted to go around indiscriminately killing people he doesn't like with drones? How about China? Chen Guangcheng is now in the U.S., but what if China declared him a "terrorist?" Would they have the right to drone bomb him in New York?

Ignoring for the moment the slippery slope argument you post, I suspect if an organization such as AQ attacked Putin's Russia the reaction of the Kremlin would be at the minimum similar to the Obama Administrations effort to eradicate the rats in Pakistan.

I don't recall your moral outrage when the Bush Administration sent cruise missiles into urban areas in Iraq in an effort (successfully I should add) to kill the sons of Saddam Hussein. Today one more head of the AQ snake was cut off.

I say Well Done! Why don't you?

You should be droned.

Why don't you enlist asswipe ?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Skyrocketing College Tuition and a Precedent on Drones — Today’s Q’s for O’s WH — 6/5/12 - ABC News

I omitted Jay Carney's pointless and ridiculous non-answers to this question, but you can read them at the link if you like. At any rate, what if China, Russia, or Syria used the drone technology in a similar fashion to the United States? What if Putin took it upon himself to review his kill-list every Tuesday and declare people terrorists and then target them for assassination? Does he have the right to do that, or is only the President of the U.S. permitted to do so? We know that Assad blamed the Houla massacre on "terrorists," so should he be permitted to go around indiscriminately killing people he doesn't like with drones? How about China? Chen Guangcheng is now in the U.S., but what if China declared him a "terrorist?" Would they have the right to drone bomb him in New York?

Ignoring for the moment the slippery slope argument you post, I suspect if an organization such as AQ attacked Putin's Russia the reaction of the Kremlin would be at the minimum similar to the Obama Administrations effort to eradicate the rats in Pakistan.

I don't recall your moral outrage when the Bush Administration sent cruise missiles into urban areas in Iraq in an effort (successfully I should add) to kill the sons of Saddam Hussein. Today one more head of the AQ snake was cut off.

I say Well Done! Why don't you?

So you don't have a problem with Putin unilaterally deciding who is or isn't a terrorist, whether they get to live or die, and then drone bombing them and any number of potential innocent civilians? What about Assad? Should he be able to unilaterally decide who is or isn't a terrorist?

I would have been 14 when Bush invaded Iraq, so I'm not surprised you don't recall my moral outrage at the time. However, I can assure you that I opposed the Iraq war from the very beginning.

Too late, the conservadaddies told the repubs that the President can do anything. See: The Unitary Executive Theory.

I told Repubs then that if they allow a president to have those powers that the next president will use them and cite precedence.

Then Obama got the nod and Repubs screamed "NOOOOOO! No President should have that power!"

Thats what you get when you play checkers when you should be playing chess.

 

[alan1]

Mr Obama made it perfectly clear that he wouldn't do horrid things like torture enemies, or imprison them without (American law) due process.
Instead, he just kills them before any of that can happen.

 

[bobgnote]

TAPPER: I was just wondering what the — where the moral foundation comes from, the United States objects in the future to an action being taken by China or Russia along these same lines?

Skyrocketing College Tuition and a Precedent on Drones — Today’s Q’s for O’s WH — 6/5/12 - ABC News

I omitted Jay Carney's pointless and ridiculous non-answers to this question, but you can read them at the link if you like. At any rate, what if China, Russia, or Syria used the drone technology in a similar fashion to the United States? What if Putin took it upon himself to review his kill-list every Tuesday and declare people terrorists and then target them for assassination? Does he have the right to do that, or is only the President of the U.S. permitted to do so? We know that Assad blamed the Houla massacre on "terrorists," so should he be permitted to go around indiscriminately killing people he doesn't like with drones? How about China? Chen Guangcheng is now in the U.S., but what if China declared him a "terrorist?" Would they have the right to drone bomb him in New York?

Ignoring for the moment the slippery slope argument you post, I suspect if an organization such as AQ attacked Putin's Russia the reaction of the Kremlin would be at the minimum similar to the Obama Administrations effort to eradicate the rats in Pakistan.

I don't recall your moral outrage when the Bush Administration sent cruise missiles into urban areas in Iraq in an effort (successfully I should add) to kill the sons of Saddam Hussein. Today one more head of the AQ snake was cut off.

I say Well Done! Why don't you?

Because the US supports Israel, to start this shit up, the CIA supported the Shah and Saddam, to start that shit up, and the US knew Al Queda was up to tricks in 2001, but the FBI and CIA wouldn't react or share, so now we have a costly DHS.

The US starts shit, fucks with it, charges all of us hidden costs, then fucks us. Try making a sound, which the NSA can't hear, and if it sounds good, they sell it to corporations like Sony-Bertelsman, Capitol, Warner-ATCO, etc. Got Bad Co.? The NSA is four times bigger, than the CIA. The domestic drones are just the next chapter, of an ongoing fuckover. And then they charge us for it, but we cannot pay.

You rant for a bitch's paradise.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Ignoring for the moment the slippery slope argument you post, I suspect if an organization such as AQ attacked Putin's Russia the reaction of the Kremlin would be at the minimum similar to the Obama Administrations effort to eradicate the rats in Pakistan.

I don't recall your moral outrage when the Bush Administration sent cruise missiles into urban areas in Iraq in an effort (successfully I should add) to kill the sons of Saddam Hussein. Today one more head of the AQ snake was cut off.

I say Well Done! Why don't you?

So you don't have a problem with Putin unilaterally deciding who is or isn't a terrorist, whether they get to live or die, and then drone bombing them and any number of potential innocent civilians? What about Assad? Should he be able to unilaterally decide who is or isn't a terrorist?

I would have been 14 when Bush invaded Iraq, so I'm not surprised you don't recall my moral outrage at the time. However, I can assure you that I opposed the Iraq war from the very beginning.

Too late, the conservadaddies told the repubs that the President can do anything. See: The Unitary Executive Theory.

I told Repubs then that if they allow a president to have those powers that the next president will use them and cite precedence.

Then Obama got the nod and Repubs screamed "NOOOOOO! No President should have that power!"

Thats what you get when you play checkers when you should be playing chess.

You don't have to tell me any of this. I just wonder how all of the partisan Democrats are going to like it when the next Republican President starts assassinating people like Obama does.

 

[Moonglow]

Mr Obama made it perfectly clear that he wouldn't do horrid things like torture enemies, or imprison them without (American law) due process.
Instead, he just kills them before any of that can happen.

thank goodness.

 

[Moonglow]

So you don't have a problem with Putin unilaterally deciding who is or isn't a terrorist, whether they get to live or die, and then drone bombing them and any number of potential innocent civilians? What about Assad? Should he be able to unilaterally decide who is or isn't a terrorist?

I would have been 14 when Bush invaded Iraq, so I'm not surprised you don't recall my moral outrage at the time. However, I can assure you that I opposed the Iraq war from the very beginning.

Too late, the conservadaddies told the repubs that the President can do anything. See: The Unitary Executive Theory.

I told Repubs then that if they allow a president to have those powers that the next president will use them and cite precedence.

Then Obama got the nod and Repubs screamed "NOOOOOO! No President should have that power!"

Thats what you get when you play checkers when you should be playing chess.

You don't have to tell me any of this. I just wonder how all of the partisan Democrats are going to like it when the next Republican President starts assassinating people like Obama does.

I hope they do it. It will save trooper lives in the long run.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Too late, the conservadaddies told the repubs that the President can do anything. See: The Unitary Executive Theory.

I told Repubs then that if they allow a president to have those powers that the next president will use them and cite precedence.

Then Obama got the nod and Repubs screamed "NOOOOOO! No President should have that power!"

Thats what you get when you play checkers when you should be playing chess.

You don't have to tell me any of this. I just wonder how all of the partisan Democrats are going to like it when the next Republican President starts assassinating people like Obama does.

I hope they do it. It will save trooper lives in the long run.

You can achieve that without murdering people by not sending troops over there in the first place.

 

[Paulie]

The same govt that conducted "Fast and Furious" is gonna' tell us that they blew up a terrorist on US soil based on secret info that they can't show us because "It's Classified".

I figger they'll blow up a Bank robber first just to get Americans used to it.

Of course this is all classified, except for what the administration leaks to make itself look tough.

It's called "limited hangout". Provide very vague and ultimately insignificant details about something in particular to give the appearance of transparency.

Most sheep eat it up like candy.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Skyrocketing College Tuition and a Precedent on Drones — Today’s Q’s for O’s WH — 6/5/12 - ABC News

I omitted Jay Carney's pointless and ridiculous non-answers to this question, but you can read them at the link if you like. At any rate, what if China, Russia, or Syria used the drone technology in a similar fashion to the United States? What if Putin took it upon himself to review his kill-list every Tuesday and declare people terrorists and then target them for assassination? Does he have the right to do that, or is only the President of the U.S. permitted to do so? We know that Assad blamed the Houla massacre on "terrorists," so should he be permitted to go around indiscriminately killing people he doesn't like with drones? How about China? Chen Guangcheng is now in the U.S., but what if China declared him a "terrorist?" Would they have the right to drone bomb him in New York?

Ignoring for the moment the slippery slope argument you post, I suspect if an organization such as AQ attacked Putin's Russia the reaction of the Kremlin would be at the minimum similar to the Obama Administrations effort to eradicate the rats in Pakistan.

I don't recall your moral outrage when the Bush Administration sent cruise missiles into urban areas in Iraq in an effort (successfully I should add) to kill the sons of Saddam Hussein. Today one more head of the AQ snake was cut off.

I say Well Done! Why don't you?

So you don't have a problem with Putin unilaterally deciding who is or isn't a terrorist, whether they get to live or die, and then drone bombing them and any number of potential innocent civilians? What about Assad? Should he be able to unilaterally decide who is or isn't a terrorist?

Don't build a straw dog; don't put words in my mouth. I frame my opinion based on the Catholic Doctrine of a Just War:

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/justwar.htm

I would have been 14 when Bush invaded Iraq, so I'm not surprised you don't recall my moral outrage at the time. However, I can assure you that I opposed the Iraq war from the very beginning.

Our perspective is quite different, I was 19 when I enlisted in the Navy in 1967. I learned to hate that war, and war in general. I am not however a pacifist and never have been. A sucker punch deserves, no demands, a response. I applaud what Obama's Administration is doing in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan I only wish he could carry on without boots on the ground.