Quote:
Originally Posted by Azred
This isn't about military service, gentlemen. This is about the government having a hit list that includes American citizens.
It doesn't matter what actions a citizen performs, if they are an American citizen they are supposed to be under the auspices of the Constitution. I agree that an American citizen who has joined some group who is shooting at military people deserves to be shot as a legitimate enemy combatant, but this Mr. Al-Aulaqi was not a combatant; rather, he only encouraged combatants. One person he encouraged (either directly or indirectly) was Major Nadal, the Ft. Hood shooter...who gets his day in front of a tribunal, not a drone.
I also have to admit that I enjoy the irony. Obama's detractors in the Republican Party cannot come out against the drone policy because to do so would be seen as support for letting members of Al Queda live.
I was listening to the Tavis Smiley/Cornell West show Friday morning--I listen to shows like theirs and DemocracyNow to get a different perspective and see how the other side thinks--and their guest was a founder of Code Pink (her name escapes me at the moment). She was definitely against the drone attack and she feels "burned" by Obama.
|
We got onto military service as 'some' of us feel that our politicians need that service. The underlying reason is simple, if one has never served, how they 'feel' the effects of their policies? Simple really, at age 18 they serve two years then return to their chosen ivy league school.
My point is "why" do we have drones in Yemen. FYI: Drones are pilot-less, however, a human (service member) flies it remotely, and is the one who "pulls" the trigger, upon order of usually the POTUS in situations like these. Bush 43 was very reserved in drone attacks, and very rarely gave the order, BHO on the other hand, has given more in almost 3 years as W did it 7.
Killing a US citizen? Well I'll tell ya!
Quote:
|
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; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
|
foreign and domestic is not a grey area, its rather clear!
That goes back to "why", because the guy giving the order is the POTUS!
FYI:
It was a warm Spring day. It was the 7th of May 1999. A platoon of RANGERs were in a country that most Americans did not know or care about at that time. They were on a man hunt. They were hunting a man who went rogue. That man was equipped by Pakistan, through, you guessed it, The USA. He assisted the Afghans in repelling the Soviets in late 79 and the early 1980's. About 2000 meters from the 'suspected' location of their target, a sniper team equipped with a Barrett SASR had the target in scope and reticle. The current POTUS stalled on every conceivable account possible without ever giving the order, and it worked. The target eventually went back into his cave, out of sight! Today both that POTUS and that sniper team live with the fact that 9/11 occurred. I'm sure one plays it off as it would have happened regardless. Because another would have stepped in. The other two contemplate where they would be today it there had been an "accidental" discharge that morning.
I commend the POTUS on OBL, and Anwar al-Awlaki. However, I question the location. For a guy who is suppose to end the wars and bring our troops home, he has in fact added to the wars, and is increasing our troop deployments into different countries. You can fly a drone from a secure facility, but you can't fly it from thousands of miles away!