A First Draft of the Third War

Why President Obama should commission a history of targeted killing.

BY MICAH ZENKO | MARCH 6, 2013

Since 11:47 on Wednesday morning, the beginning of a Senate filibuster to delay a vote on John Brennan’s nomination to head the CIA, “Rand Paul,” “drones,” and “John Brennan” have intermittently been trending on Twitter. This attention-grabbing focus on targeted killings — which will last only until Paul runs out of steam — is representative of the sporadic attention that the controversial tactic has received from policymakers and the public.

With each supposed revelation — the “kill list,” “signature strikes,” “disposition matrix,” and the leaking of a Department of Justice white paper providing the legal justification for killing American citizens — there is a frenzy of interest in drone strikes. Analysts (myself included) are repeatedly asked, “Where is this all heading in five or ten years?” In other words: What additional lethal missions will U.S. armed drones execute, and where will they occur? What other states will seek to develop this military capability?

But, in general, there is relative indifference to the history of America’s Third War — the 10-year campaign of over 400 targeted killings in non-battlefield settings that have killed an estimated 3,500 to 4,700 people. And that is puzzling, particularly since they have become a defining feature of post-9/11 U.S. foreign policy.

Over the past few months, many stakeholders in and out of government have offered recommendations about how the Obama administration should change, limit, end, or enhance its targeted killing policies. However, there have been no calls for an official government study into the history and evolution of non-battlefield targeted killings. This is essential, since reforms must first be informed by an accurate accounting of how the policies were originally conceived, how they were implemented and altered based on updated information, whether they succeeded or failed at achieving their objectives, and what their intended and unintended effects have been.

If President Obama believes what he said in his State of the Union address — “It is not sufficient for citizens to just take my word for it that we are doing the right thing” — then he should authorize a comprehensive historical review into targeted killings, ideally by an independent commission. This review would later be declassified — with input from the original classification authorities — to the greatest extent possible without revealing classified information regarding the sources and methods of such operations. This would include protecting those foreign liaison relationships that facilitate U.S. military or intelligence access to denied areas.

The president and his senior officials have repeatedly asserted that drones are “surgical,” “discriminate,” and “precise,” and that there is a very careful and deliberate interagency process (“not a bunch of folks in a room somewhere just making decisions”). If that is true, then the Obama administration must believe it has a positive targeted killings story to share with the public. This would be preferable to the surreptitious custom of rebutting criticisms of targeted killings via anonymous officials, or selectively disavowing attacks that were initially thought to be drone strikes, as the New York Times reported on Monday.

Such an action would not be unprecedented. In May 2009, President Obama declassified Office of Legal Counsel memoranda justifying torture “because the existence of that approach to interrogation was already widely known, the Bush administration had acknowledged its existence.” Today, targeted killings via U.S. drone strikes are openly debated, and Obama himself explicitly acknowledged the practice of targeted killings in Pakistan over 13 months ago. The principle and excuse of deniability no longer applies and is an unacceptable defense for the limitless secrecy surrounding the targeted killings program.

There are publicly available or partially declassified U.S. government reports on similarly controversial topics, including the CIA’s 2004 report on detention and interrogation, the Pentagon’s 2005 review of detention and interrogation, and the director of national intelligence’s 2012 report on Guantanamo detainees. There have also been major reports, like the 9/11 Commission Report and the congressional joint inquiry into the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, as well as the U.S. military’s highly critical assessments of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Finally, there was the Senate Foreign Relations Committee report on Afghanistan’s narco-war, which revealed that U.S. military forces “put drug traffickers with proven links to the insurgency on a kill list, called the joint integrated prioritized target list.”

If the White House is unable or unwilling to conduct a similar study on drones, then Congress should build upon its recent efforts at oversight by initiating a full and complete accounting of non-battlefield targeted killings. This could be done through a joint inquiry or within the committees on governmental affairs, foreign relations, armed services, or intelligence. It would include staff investigations, closed hearings with administration officials, and public hearings with outside experts and former officials. One recent example is the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s 6,000-page report on CIA torture, which may be released in whole or in part “after receiving executive branch comments,” according to Senator Dianne Feinstein. Given that Congress (justifiably) investigated America’s role in the torture of an estimated 136 victims, it is surely worth investigating the targeted killings program, which has killed over 3,000 suspected terrorists, militants, and civilians — and counting.

The first component of reform is drawing upon the experiences and lessons of the past. Without an official history of targeted killings, future U.S. government officials and employees will only be influenced by the immediate scope of their responsibilities, and citizens will absorb each new headline without a broader context or awareness. An executive or congressional historical report of targeted killings should receive bipartisan support, since the program has actually spanned three administrations — even Bill Clinton maintained a kill list of “fewer than ten” suspected al Qaeda members. However, virtually all policymakers and citizens have forgotten that and are similarly unaware of the deep and opaque history of the Third War, because their focus is forever on the present and the future.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Micah Zenko (@MicahZenko) is the Douglas Dillon fellow with the Center for Preventive Action at the Council on Foreign Relations. He writes the blog Politics, Power, and Preventive Action.

1 comment

FPWelcome to Foreign Policy’s new commenting system! The good news is that it’s now easier than ever to comment and share your insights with friends. Here’s how it works: You can now sign in by creating a LiveFyre account (which will replace the ForeignPolicy.com accounts from now on), or using a Twitter or Facebook account, and carry on a conversation with your fellow commenters in the section below. You do not have to sign in using a social network if you choose to remain anonymous – simply use a LiveFyre account to continue commenting. For more information, click here.
coggocog

My dear Micah Zenco,

What have you against me?

Signed, sealed and delivered by

Barack Obama (Drone) Commander in Chief

…and I am Sid Harth@elcidharth.com

seconds agoReplyLike

Conversation on FP.com

FP Logo

11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

This story is part of Barack Obama

Rand Paul ends epic filibuster over Brennan

Jim Michaels, USA TODAY1:51a.m. EST March 7, 2013

WASHINGTON — After nearly 13 hours on the Senate floor, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., ended his filibuster blocking Senate confirmation of John Brennan, President Obama’s pick for director of the CIA.

“I’m going to speak as long as I can to draw attention to something I find very disturbing,” Paul said when he started speaking around 11:45 a.m. Wednesday morning. He finally ceded the floor at about 12:40 a.m. local time on Thursday.

But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, also a Kentucky Republican, said he would continue to oppose Brennan’s confirmation and ending debate on it.

What started in the morning as a solo effort turned into a multi-senator debate that included one Democrat, Ron Wyden of Oregon, and at least seven Republicans questioning the constitutionality of drone strikes on U.S. citizens at home and abroad.

“No American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found guilty of a crime by a court,” Paul said. “How can you kill someone without going to a judge, or a jury?”

Paul, a critic of Obama’s unmanned drone policy, started his self-described filibuster by demanding the president or Attorney General Eric Holder issue a statement assuring that unmanned aircraft would not be used in the United States to kill terrorism suspects who are U.S. citizens.

Paul said that his opposition was not about Brennan himself, but the constitutional issues involved. “We really just want [Obama] to say he won’t” attack noncombatants on U.S. soil.

The federal government has not conducted such operations and doesn’t plan to, Attorney General Eric Holder told Paul in a March 4 letter. But, Holder added, it was possible President Obama could be forced by an “extraordinary circumstance” to kill citizens inside the United States, and he cited the Pearl Harbor and 9/11 attacks as examples.

During his filibuster, Paul said the fuzziness of such language created a slippery slope that could lead to the targeting of citizens who merely have different opinions about policies than the president.

“You can’t be judge, jury and executioner all in one,” Paul said.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., took the floor around 4:30 p.m. to say any vote to end debate on Brennan’s nomination or to approve him as CIA director would happen Thursday.

Wyden, a longtime critic of excessive government intelligence and surveillance programs, said “the senator from Kentucky has made a number of important points.”

There are times, Wyden said, when a U.S. citizen who takes up arms against the United States while overseas can be attacked by a drone. But the executive branch of government, he said, should not be allowed to “conduct such a far-reaching policy without scrutiny.”

It’s not a partisan issue, Paul said, noting that he voted to support the nominations of John Kerry and Chuck Hagel, the secretaries of State and Defense.

Paul and other senators had delayed a full Senate vote on Brennan’s nomination until they received more information about the drone program. The White House provided Justice Department documents on the drone program to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday.

The committee then voted 12-3 to approve Brennan’s nomination.

Brennan, the White House’s top counterterrorism adviser, was closely linked to the drone program. The administration has used the unmanned aircraft to regularly target suspected terrorists in the Middle East and Africa.

In 2011, U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was killed by a drone strike in Yemen, raising questions about the use of the armed drones on American citizens.

Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina had used Brennan’s nomination to air concerns about the administration’s handling of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador.

McCain and Graham said they would oppose Brennan unless they got classified documents detailing the administration’s actions immediately following the attack, the Associated Press reported.

The White House has said it provided more documents to lawmakers about that attack.

Before coming to the White House, Brennan served 25 years in the CIA.

Contributing: Alia E. Dastagir in Tysons; the Associated Press

Hello SiDevilIam | Edit Profile | Log out
HOME /  Politics :  Who’s winning, who’s losing, and why.

Why Drone Paranoia Works

If you want to stop something, scream, “Tyranny!”

By |Posted Thursday, March 7, 2013, at 6:42 PM

Protestors against the use of drone strikes by the US military hold a model of a drone aircraft during the "March On Wall Street South" rally in Charlotte, North Carolina, ahead of the Democratic National Convention, on September 2, 2012.

Sen. Rand Paul’s filibuster became such a sensation, so fast, that it’s easy to forget where anti-drone activism startedPhoto by Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images

His mind restored by sleep, his bladder finally emptied, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul gave his first interview after a 12-hour drone-policy filibuster to an awed Glenn Beck.

“This man is going to be the logical choice for president of the United States,” Beck told his listeners, just after 10:30 a.m. “He is reasonable, polite, and I believe in a teaching mode right now.” Paul was telling Americans that they “have the right to live, and to have a trial, and to have a warrant. Not just to be killed, gunned down in the streets, or in this case, killed by a drone, because this president or any president says, yeah, take him out.”

The last time most people saw Glenn Beck, he was hosting a Fox News show renowned for its use of a mobile blackboard. In white chalk on black slate, viewers learned that Barack Obama was building a private army, that the government would seize private land to peg a new post-dollar currency, and that the Arab Spring was an “Archduke Ferdinand moment” for Marxists.

Advertisement

That was the old Glenn Beck. The new Glenn Beck calls himself a “libertarian” akin to Penn Jillette. His news site and online video channel brim with stories about heroic applications of the Second Amendment (“Wanted fugitive fatally shot by gun-toting Kansas farmer”), left-wing censorship (“Do you count as an extremist ‘patriot’?”), and politicians alternately heroic (Rand Paul) and vile (John McCain).

Paul’s filibuster became such a sensation, so fast, that it’s easy to forget where anti-drone activism started. It started on the left. Last year, when Charles Krauthammer got spooked about domestic surveillance drones, he warned that he was taking the “hard left, ACLU” stance. If you showed up at any sizable anti-war rally since 2012, you probably saw the grey, phallic head of a papier-mâché drone hoisted over the crowd. The first city councils to debate drone bans were in liberal Charlottesville, Va. and even-more-liberal Seattle. “The request for our resolution came from the Rutherford Institute,” says Charlottesville Mayor Satyendra Huja. That organization, based in that college town, has called Barack Obama the “executioner-in-chief.”

If you want the government to regulate or ban drones—for domestic surveillance, for warfare, for targeted killings of Americans—this is exactly how you want the politics to work. There’s no scrutiny of government surveillance or warfare programs unless those programs stir up left-right paranoia. When that paranoia crests, a bill can be stopped, or a ban can squeak through. Ask the poor lobbyists for REAL ID, or ask one of the tech lobbyists who thought the Stop Online Piracy Act was going to sail through. You can’t win one of these battles unless the lumpen talk radio fan thinks the government will use its powers to steal his freedom.

Until this week, that was the problem facing anti-drone campaigners. One month ago, the Washington Post/ABC News poll asked voters whether they favored “the use of unmanned, ‘drone’ aircraft against terrorist suspects overseas.” Eighty-three percent said they did, and 65 percent said they favored even targeted killings of American citizens. That was more than a year after a drone attack killed al-Qaida’s “YouTube preacher” Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son, American citizens both. Most Americans didn’t worry about that.

SINGLE PAGE

Page: 1 | 2

David Weigel is a Slate political reporter. You can reach him at daveweigel@gmail.com, or tweet at him @daveweigel.

Easy Matthew
Is just seems like if this were happening 7 years ago liberals would be outraged and conservatives would be all gong-ho about it.I’ll give Rand Paul credit though, I think his stance would be the same.

11 Seconds Ago
 from slate.com
· Reply · Like · Flag
SiDevilIam
Drone Assassinations: Legal! not Moral! | elcidharth
elcidharth.com/2013/02/…/drone-assassinations-legal-not-mor…Feb 4, 2013 – John Brennan faces grilling over drone leak as senators demand …… key words pop up, yep webworldismyoyster.com is all about: drone, …

38 Seconds Ago
 from slate.com
· Reply · Like · Flag · Edit
Declan Davies
Nobel Peace Prize winners get to use killer drones whenever they want. It’s one of the perks.
MUGger and Easy Matthew like this.
7 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Reply · Like · Flag
Kev
Here’s a situation for you: A US citizen in, let’s say Montana, has cultivated a domestic terrorist cell. He lives on a compound with several underground bunkers, and has rigged bombs to go off if anyone intrudes. We know he plans to carry out an attack in the immediate future.Do we just let him set the bombs off? Do we send in soldiers to die? Do we go to his compound and issue him a warrant?

I fully understand the slippery-slope argument, and it’s not without merit in this case. But the realpolitik of the situation is that, as Holder initially said, *extraordinary* circumstances might not be as black and white as the Rand Pauls of the world would like to believe.

10 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Reply · Like · Flag
Timbo
Are you under the impression that we haven’t confronted this before? That the FBI has never stopped bomb-makers in this country?
6 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Reply · Like · Flag
Vernon
Lets add to the hypothetical. We have one of the associates of this domestic terrorist in custody. We know there is literally a ticking time bomb set to explode, and the associate won’t tell us where. Is it OK to torture him to get him to tell us where the bomb is?You can always come up with an extreme hypothetical where it makes sense to bend the rules. But thats different than institutionalizing a certain power. Once a certain power is in the government’s tool box — whether its waterboarding or assassination without process — that tool will be used in less extreme situations.

The question is not whether there are any conceivable circumstances where it would be okay to assassinate a US citizen not engaged in combat or an imminent threat. The question is whether we want to institutionalize this power without any checks or transparency on how it will be used.

2 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Reply · Like · Flag
Tom
“I don’t think the president would purposely take innocent people and kill them,” said Paul in his filibuster. “I really don’t think he would drop a Hellfire missile on a cafe or a restaurant like I’m talking about. But it bothers me that he won’t say that he won’t.”It bothers me that Rand Paul doesn’t specifically say that he does not beat his wife.

Kev and SmagBoy1 and 213 more like this.
29 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Reply · Like · Flag
A.E.
So you’re okay with the President secretly deciding who lives and who dies?THIS President, right?

You wouldn’t be okay with, say, President Romney evading this important question, would you?

Partisanship. Has. No. Place. In. Law.

seenemdoit likes this.
25 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Reply · Like · Flag
William
Not sure that’s what he’s saying, though I agree that no President should be allowed to conduct off-battlefield summary executions without judicial process. Nor should any President or Congress be allowed to redefine the battlefield as everywhere. Absent actual exigencies of war, there are due process requirements in the US Constitution.
22 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Reply · Like · Flag
Tom
Nice strawman you got there fella. Can you make it dance?Or does it just spout absurd arguments for you to knock down?

Kev likes this.
22 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Reply · Like · Flag
A.E.
You didn’t knock anything down. You simply flung an epithet.It’s no straw-man. The drone assassination program is very real.

Would you support a Republican President with this authority? You can go on record now if you like.

21 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Like · Flag
Bob Loblaw Lobs Law Bomb
It isn’t an “assassination” program. It is pursuant to a declared state of hostilities with Al Qaeda.I already did “support” a President using this authority.

Kev likes this.
20 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Like · Flag
A.E.
So explain the assassination of Anwar Alaki for making a speech.Or his 16-year old son. The administration has made NO defense of that assassination.

I think maybe a lot of people don’t know what “assassination” means.

I think a lot of people aren’t thinking.

And then some of them are thinking. And what they are thinking is,

“The President can do whatever he wants.”

Might as well have a King, the way some people “believe” in the infallible godlike President!

18 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Like · Flag
View more items
Bob Loblaw Lobs Law Bomb
I am perfectly OK with using war powers to confront Al Qaeda. That’s not me, Obama or some opinion in the ether. That is under the LAW.I do believe, however, we need major statutory revisions to the law in the case of combatting nonstate actors.

By the way, I never once protested the Bush Administration’s usage of war power against Al Qaeda, so cool it with your self-serving partisanship claim.

20 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Reply · Like · Flag
A.E.
Good for you! You support secret government action no matter which party dominates!
16 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Like · Flag
Bob Loblaw Lobs Law Bomb
So do you
16 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Like · Flag
William
I don’t understand why Paul would care what the President promises to do or not do. More important is that there is judicial review of the kill list of these classified killings, because some judicial process is better than none.
25 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Reply · Like · Flag
A.E.
That debate was over long ago.The President has already declared this program above judicial review. Apparently, Congress agrees, as it has yet to hold the program to critical scrutiny. The courts cannot act until they get a case. But the Obama administration has already argued that it does not have to respond in court to inquiries about secret programs. The administration has declared this secret process satisfies the “due process” requirements of the Constitution.

Anyone who support or excuses this supports and excuses a form of tyranny.

22 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Reply · Like · Flag
William
He can declare what he wants and Congress can pass hundreds of laws agreeing with him. That matters not. What matters is what the US Constitution requires.
21 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Like · Flag
A.E.
I agree, William – but who will hold the President accountable if not (1) Congress and/or (2) voters?
20 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Like · Flag
Bob Loblaw Lobs Law Bomb
Of course he did. War powers are a political question under our history of judicial review.
13 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Like · Flag
Bob Loblaw Lobs Law Bomb
Where under the law is a judicial review required?
15 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Reply · Like · Flag
A.E.
Are you familiar with “due process?”
13 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Like · Flag
William
The ACLU should (and probably will) challenge the constitutionality of the drone program within the AUMF. If it makes it to the Supremes, the case will be a losing one, because our current Supreme Court is more interested in the appearance of security than in civil rights.
8 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Like · Flag
Bob Loblaw Lobs Law Bomb
Due process only applies in civil law, not the laws of warThe ACLU would lose and lose very badly because it is completely and unimpeachably constitutional to declare and wage war

8 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Like · Flag
View more items
Ernst Blofeld
Why did liberals wait until now to be complacent about drones?
32 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Reply · Like · Flag
William
Hmmm… not the ones I know. BTW, it matters not to me whether these are drones or human assassins, summary execution outside of the exigencies of combat I find deeply troubling. When any government defines the battlefield as everywhere and the war as perpetual, due process guarantees can go out the window. I would require a prospective review of the kill list by a judge with top secret clearance.
27 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Reply · Like · Flag
Finneus
Panel of judges, maybe rotating through for a set period of time. Otherwise the judge can just become another yes man/woman in the machine.
7 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Reply · Like · Flag
ralph w
Most liberals I know are pretty up in arms about drones. A few of them never cared to begin with.
Bob Loblaw Lobs Law Bomb likes this.
27 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Reply · Like · Flag
SmagBoy1 and 213 more
Some liberals have been busying themselves over the last 10+ years with wars in general, at least the ones based on false intelligence, lies, profiteering, etc. Sometimes when looking at the big picture, like war, one misses the smaller parts, and especially the smaller parts that make for *less* death, rather than more. But, unlike conservatives who walk in lock step, liberals are free thinkers and we often have disparate ideas. And that’s okay. We have a big tent and welcome all.
Paige Lenox George likes this.
24 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Reply · Like · Flag
View more items
acptulsa
If the filibuster was not there to call attention to the important things, what was it there for? If the filibuster obscured the real issues, why are such neocon blathering hacks as Beck and Limbaugh suddenly sounding human and American? If this is a sideshow, how has it dragged our Constitution front and center and forced an ostensibly civil liberties-friendly administration to affirm our civil liberties (albeit twenty-four hours late and clearly against its will)?So long as we allow the powers that be to cause us to consider silly capital D’s and capital R’s more important than our Constitution, our liberty, our love of peace, our integrity, and our future we will continue to slide down the slippery slope into moral ambiguity, bankruptcy and the dustbin of history.

Your ally is anyone who can help you preserve, protect and defend your liberty and America’s integrity. Your enemy is anyone who would lead you so much as an inch off that path. If you can’t see this, you’re a fool, and more part of the problem than you will ever be part of the solution.

This is not time to be divided and conquered. Substance is more important than labels. And this filibuster has CLEARLY added substance to the conversation, and forced this administration to commit to serve We, the People. I am at a loss as to how anyone can criticize it without becoming a Useful Idiot in the process. I certainly haven’t seen anyone pull it off yet.

40 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Reply · Like · Flag
Bob Loblaw Lobs Law Bomb
I criticize it not for its application but for its widespread propagation of complete falsehoods
36 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Reply · Like · Flag
eddieparolini
…and never pass on the opportunity to point out hypocrisy when it is there. I agree that the discussion should take place but refuse to accept that Limbaugh has anything to contribute to it, based on his labeling anyone who disagreed with Bush/Cheney back in the early 2000s as soft on terrorism if not anti-American.I have absolutely no doubt that a President McCain or a President Romney would not be questioned by Limbaugh on this issue.

It does not distract from the discussion at hand to point this out.

31 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Reply · Like · Flag
cab5015
Where were the neocons when the Patriot Act (the first step on this road) was passed? I hated it then, and, though I like Obama, think the powers given are a slippery slope. But I was a commie unpatriotic socialist when the law was passed. How has the worm turned.
16 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Like · Flag
Dr. Bob
Of course, the essential problem is that what Rand Paul did was invent a problem, and pour enough B on it that the real issues are hard to find.You notice that he’s not calling for repealing the Patriot Act. He’s not concerned about data-mining, or Guantanamo, or any such thing.

And the very next day, the Republicans were back to yelling about the radical notion of trying a captured criminal in Federal court.

What cheeses me off about Rand Paul–and I did admire his just going ahead and filibustering–is that it’s a sideshow. And I don’t think he’s smart enough, on the basis of his subsequent interviews, to say that the filibuster was there to get attention for the important things.

MUGger, David Harlem, Timbo and dc like this.
49 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Reply · Like · Flag
Pax
Everybody in the USA loves “their guy” above common sense. However even under those circumstances some of the partisan cheerleaders can look beyond the year number 4 and say: “This is the kind of power I would not like the OTHER GUY to have.”And hence you will get both Democrats and Republicans agree on an issue like due-process-free whacking of US citizens.

Chris likes this.
1 Hour Ago
 from slate.com
· Reply · Like · Flag
Bill Brice
The old “both sides do it” schtick is lamer than usual here. Especially when your last sentence reveals your own “side”.
54 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Reply · Like · Flag
Bob Loblaw Lobs Law Bomb
It is always a cudgel to use trying to unstick partisan loyalty or forming any sort of affirmative opinion at all. You are relegated to be permanently cynical and view everyone and anyone as bad.
52 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Reply · Like · Flag
Pax
You completely misunderstand my post.
48 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Reply · Like · Flag
Bob Loblaw Lobs Law Bomb
Not really. You consider your political opinion/support sincere because it is yours. Anyone else who holds an opposing opinion/opposes your political side is insincere, because it isn’t yours. I’m a hypocrite under your principle if I don’t agree with everything you say.
43 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Like · Flag
Pax
My post was directed at Bil. However from your current post it is obvious you misunderstand my post as well.Maybe simpler words: just like you indicate most people in the USA cannot go beyond their own point of view and in simplicity of their mind consider people of different opinion “a villain”.

34 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Like · Flag
Pax
However even under such circumstances some people having unshaken believe in the benevolence of “their guy” have to realize that a particular power is tied to the office, not the guy. As soon as they imagine the “other guy” having the same power they start to understand that the power itself is the problem.Then of course you have somebody like me: I always look at the office, not the man who holds it. Since I have no allegiance to any American party, my position is quite objective on this. While you might think Obama will never use the assassination power wrongly, I think what will happen when Americans choose a “statesman” like Sarah Palin for president 4, 8, 12 or even 16 years down the road…

Vernon likes this.
33 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Like · Flag
View more items
steve_macdonald
Conservatives “freaking out” about drones is profoundly hypocritical. Ever since 9/11 the entire conservative commentariat (in comment forums like this one, if not the bloggers themselves) has been replete with calls to turn this or that country into a “glass parking lot” (i.e., mass-murder millions of Muslims with nuclear weapons). The degree of hatred and bigotry has been absolutely appalling (and I say this as someone with conservative instincts in many areas).The vast majority of conservatives have no problem at all with extra-judicial killings of *anyone* thought to be associated with Islamic terrorism, especially if they are brown-skinned. To call Obama on this one is the absolute nadir of hypocrisy.

It just stinks.

LAIKA, David Harlem, Dr. Bob, Michael Strickland and mike_nimzo like this.
1 Hour Ago
 from slate.com
· Reply · Like · Flag
eddieparolini
This would have been a much more interesting discussion back in the early 2000s, (had we the drone capability then which we have now), when the thing an elected official most feared was being labeled ‘soft on terrorism.’Senator Paul might have voiced the same objections but he would not have had Senators backing him then as has now.

Given his penchant for bombast and opportunism, I can easily imagine Cruz fully supporting then President Bush and labeling anyone would didn’t as soft on terrorism.

54 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Reply · Like · Flag
Vernon
Even hypocrites are right half of the time.When it comes to civil liberties, I’ll take whatever allies I can get. Especially now that the democratic establishment has stopped caring about them.

47 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Reply · Like · Flag
eddieparolini
Anything to further the discussion yes.I still believe it is also important to let the Cruz contingent know that we know they are posturing.

43 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Reply · Like · Flag
Bob Loblaw Lobs Law Bomb
I look forward to your future support of Amnesty International, CodePink and the ACLU
40 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Reply · Like · Flag
Vernon
I have volunteered for the ACLU for years, long before Obama was elected.And your civil liberties cred? Other than you cared about it when Bush was in office, and no longer believe its an issue now that there is a Dem president?

39 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Like · Flag
Bob Loblaw Lobs Law Bomb
You have absolutely no idea what I did and didn’t support during the Bush Administration
38 Minutes Ago
 from slate.com
· Like · Flag
Bob Loblaw Lobs Law Bomb
1 Hour Ago
 from slate.com
· Reply · Like · Flag
More
Slate is published by The Slate Group, a Division of the Washington Post Company
All contents © 2013 The Slate Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
About 13,100 results (0.35 seconds)

Advanced searchSearch HelpGive us feedback

About 6,000 results (0.44 seconds)

Ads related to @webworldismyoyster.com drone

  1. Drone at Amazon.com

    Buy drone at Amazon! Qualified orders over $25 ship free

  2. Support Paul’s Filibuster

    action.freedomworks.org/

    Rand Paul is fighting Obama’s Drone Policy. Stand with Rand. Right now!

About 9,370 results (0.45 seconds)

Ad related to @webworldismyoyster.com Barack Obama

  1. Dear Mr. President

    Let’s change the world Here’s how

About 8,050 results (0.34 seconds)

Ad related to @webworldismyoyster.com Afghanistan

  1. Afghanistan

    U.S. strategy and operations in Afghanistan for 2009 and beyond

About 4,530 results (0.44 seconds)

Ad related to @elcidharth.com drone

  1. Drone at Amazon.com

    1,003 reviews for amazon.com

    Buy drone at Amazon! Qualified orders over $25 ship free

…and I am Sid Harth@elcidharth.comavatar92