Statist Lindsey Graham: Obama Needs Protection From Libertarians and the Left

Reason.com

“Every member of Congress needs to get on board,” Graham said. “It’s not fair to the president to let him, leave him out there alone quite frankly. He’s getting hit from libertarians and the left.

“I think the middle of America understands why you would want a drone program to go after a person like Anwar al-Awlaki,” Graham added.

“The process of being targeted I think is legal, quite frankly laborious and should reside in the commander in chief to determine who an enemy combatant is and what kind of force to use.”

“If this ever goes to court I guarantee you it will be a slam dunk support of what the administration is doing. I think one of the highlights of President Obama’s first time and the beginning of his second term is the way he’s been able to use drones against terrorists."

This is probably the funniest thing I've read all day, I can only imagine the GOP collectively facepalming over Grahams chip in the brick wall of GOP rhetoric.

reply to post by Kali74


Another government joker telling us that American citizens don't need to be arrested, tried and convicted before they are executed.

If anything, this should be a chip in the facade that our rulers have created, pretending that Republicans and Democrats are not one and the same thing.

reply to post by butcherguy


Indeed.
Authoritarian Statists need to go.

reply to post by Kali74


Talk about disillusion...slam dunk support eh??

The fact hes completely OK with Obama having an unabated, unquestioned license to kill anyone on this planet including Americans without so much as a second opinion is the most dangerous and obviously psychopathic opinion I think one could hold...

and to imply that the majority of Americans are "on board" with that thought is one of the most removed stances to hold...

It sucked when a panel of judges had to give the go-ahead for summary executions....

Now the govt has even bypassed that.

reply to post by butcherguy


Just asking...How do you "arrest, try and convict" Americans on foriegn soil? Like Yemen?

Like this one...who along with Anwar al-Awlaki successfully convinced Major Nidal Hasan to murder 13 fellow soldiers at Ft. Hood? And continued to plot other attacks on Americans?

Here’s a quote from an al Qaeda magazine interview of 24 year old American citizen Samir Khan who was born in Saudi Arabia, grew up in Queens NY, and use to live in North Carolina:

"I am proud to be a traitor to America.”

"I am a traitor to America because my religion requires me to be.

We pledge to wage jihad for the rest of our lives until either we implant Islam all over the world or meet our Lord as bearers of Islam."

answersforthefaith.com...

The drone program is for striking known terrorist targets on FORIEGN soil where attempting to aprehend them would cost lives and frankly break multiple international laws.

The recently leaked memo affirmed that it was only considered legal under specific circumstances and the first being foriegn soil...outside the jurisdiction of the US courts.

Now...I am not all for drone strikes and think the program needs scrutiny...but don't quite get it when folks who are A-OK with mass invasions and bombing the hell out of countries...all of sudden take issue with a policy that costs near infinite magnitudes less in innocent lives.

"even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S."

Clearly Libertarians and the Left are just bullies.

reply to post by Indigo5


I honestly hate when we disagree. Drones may in fact result in less innocent casualties but the ever broadening authority on their use just isn't okay.

I know you have seen this but for context:

A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.

nbc

Just asking...How do you "arrest, try and convict" Americans on foriegn soil? Like Yemen?

It's hard, so we won't play by the rules. No rules when it's too hard. At least that is what it sounds like you are saying.

The drone program is for striking known terrorist targets on FORIEGN soil where attempting to aprehend them would cost lives and frankly break multiple international laws.

Funny thing, eh? It's okay to blow up the whole house with women and children in it.... on foreign soil. But if we came in to arrest them it would break international laws? Shooting missiles into a foreign country isn't breaking any laws though... that's pretty cool.
Why didn't we shoot some missiles into Osama's compound? What we needed DNA? Have you seen the DNA test results?? See a body?? Yup, they went in there because they needed an exciting end to show on TV news.... and fodder for a movie.

The recently leaked memo affirmed that it was only considered legal under specific circumstances and the first being foriegn soil...outside the jurisdiction of the US courts.

Yes, memos supersede constitutional rights now... as long as our rulers say so.

Originally posted by Kali74

Indeed.
Authoritarian Statists need to go.

Lindsey Graham



I don't have enough thumbs!!!

S&F

He does, actually. Because real liberals and libertarians tear through Obama's BS like thermite through butter.

Really now?

Who is the guy currently going around killing people?

The Gop were those evil people who just water boarded and threw them in to Gitmo unlike the guy who just kills them for any reason what so ever.

A liberterarian would just let Obama and the GOP drone each other and be done with it imo

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Indigo5

 

I honestly hate when we disagree. Drones may in fact result in less innocent casualties but the ever broadening authority on their use just isn't okay.

I know you have seen this but for context:

A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.

nbc

Yes...I went as far as to track down the actual Memo and read it....see here.
msnbcmedia.msn.com...

I do agree that it needs to be buttoned down, scrutinized etc. Technology is evolving at light speed...and though Drones might be a very useful tool to fight "evil" now...The future is comming fast and we need a legal framework and congress, the security council et al involved.

Otherwise I am all good with scrutiny and challenge on the program...it is needed now and to set a precedent for the future.

But I also remember Sept. 11th like it was yesterday and had brothers that volounteered and went to foriegn lands on false claims of WMDs. I watched the years that followed under the "Bush Docterine" with invasions, bombings and hundreds of thousands of innocent folks killed ...

and in that light I view the "Obama Docterine" leaning heavy on Navy Seals, Special Forces and drones rather than sending 100k American boys over after near indiscriminately bombing the hell out of innocent populations...I view it as the lesser of evils.

Thats just my honest view. Pres. Bush bombed then invaded Afghanistan...Obama sent the Navy Seals to knock on one mans door. You can argue that the world should be all love and peace...but...

On Drones? A framework needs to be laid down...laws put in place...and the "memo" appears to be an effort to begin to sort that out before the Pres. leaves office...in the meanwhile I'm OK with scrutiny of the program, it's needed, but I also strongly prefer it to the former Presidents docterine.

reply to post by Indigo5

I do agree that it needs to be buttoned down, scrutinized etc. Technology is evolving at light speed...

Big flaw in that "argument" from Reagan all the way to Obama presidents of the past never thought of killing their own citizens,.

Each administration right up until the last one had their version of "Death from above" the tomahawk cruise missile.

The last part is the current one campaigned on how "evil killing people was" and that guy ratched that up way beyond the level of the last one.

It was really just an administrative blunder.

An-alwar, if they had information, engaged in treason against the US. In doing so he can lose his citizenship which means he has no Constitutional rights.

He also can be sentenced to death for treason.

Now certainly they should have followed the rules and officially revoked his citizenship before taking him out but it was only technically illegal.

reply to post by Spookycolt


So, no trial required to prove that a person committed treason?

Some govt administrators say so and that's proof?

Originally posted by butcherguy

Just asking...How do you "arrest, try and convict" Americans on foriegn soil? Like Yemen?

It's hard, so we won't play by the rules. No rules when it's too hard. At least that is what it sounds like you are saying.

It is like playing wack-a-mole from a 5000 miles away where the mole pokes his head up once a year. If you don't take the shot and a year from then 3k Americans die...what do you do then? OBL was not mobile...just the opposite, bunkered down.

Kahn was found to have helped recruit Maj. Nidal Hasan and encouraged him every step of the way. His job was to recruit Americans to conduct terrorist attacks inside the USA. He pops up in Yemen after months of watching safehouses, intelligence targets etc. What do we do? Call the Yemeni's??? It's Yemen! Do we send in the troops? Black Ops? How long ...and then conduct an unplanned OP where our folks could easily die? Or do you pull the trigger?

I don't plan on changing your mind, and I do think the program needs to be buttoned down, oversight, scrutiny etc. But I prefer killing terrorists to bombing cities.

reply to post by Indigo5


He has done much to reduce the sacrifice, drones can be part of that... yet at the same time we're getting involved in other things. I fear that as we transition out of the Middle East we will be ramping up in the South Pacific as the Trans Pacific Partnership comes into effect, that's side tracking a bit but I think it supports my stance. What I'm most concerned with is that Obama has continued the weakening of protections for American Citizens.

The NDAA 2012 passing into law indefinite detention of Americans suspected to be working with al-qaeda or belligerent to the US (whatever that means) was ruled unconstitutional, he had his chance to let the court ruling stand and take the position that it was out of his hands, since he said he wasn't comfortable with those provisions to begin with... but instead he appealed the decision. Why did he do that?

This drone business is just more of the same to me... a reduction of protection. Every single one of these new laws and policies are incredibly vague and these are things that above all else should be very clear and concise. You can't walk a line with the Constitution with vagueness, it's ridiculous. And the lesser of two evils doesn't do it for me anymore, it never should have and never should again... for anyone.

reply to post by butcherguy


Sure, send him a subpeona to come to a trial. If he refuses the trial is held on the evidence they have without a defense.

You really think he's going to return to face a trial on treason?

Its all semantics.

Jay Carney those drone strikes are "legal", "ethical", and "wise".

Anytime government uses those words to explain their actions they are anything but.