The height of preemptive war

| February 5, 2013

I remember the Left attacking President Bush for fighting preemptive wars claiming that they were illegal, but in a link sent by Ex-PH2 from NBC News, shows that this administration is involved in another kind of preemptive war – one that kills individuals they think are terrorists with no real evidence, regardless of their nationality;

The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I’ll shed no tears for any real terrorist who swallows a Hellfire missile, no matter who kills them, but it sets a dangerous precedent. A suspected association with a terrorist organization doesn’t seem to condemn a person to imprisonment in Guantanamo, as we’ve seen with the appearance former Gitmo alumni in Syria, but then we can condemn them to death?

Some military units have declared TAH an “extremist” website and block their members from us on their networks, what if they decide we’re a terrorist organization and start targeting us for preemptive justice? Yeah, I don’t expect it, nor am I that paranoid, but just as an example. I know we’re a long ways from being al Qaeda, but….

In fact, I really have no problem with it, but how can we be all over the rhetorical map and be releasing terrorists from Guantanamo while killing others for whom no real evidence exists? Either the government needs to admit that Guantanamo is a solution or they have to scrap their Joe Bite Me drone operations. Both are viable solutions, and I support both, it’s time for the Obama Administration to stop being bi-polar while they fight terrorism.

Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Terror War

Comments (13)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. dnice says:

    Cruise missiles are to Pres. Clinton as UAVs are to Pres. Obama. It involves very little risk (well until a virus takes over one) plus since they are relying on the UAVs and primarily special forces, the Military can be reduced so that its influence is diminished in society and you can advance your social engineering devices to further control it.

    My take is the Administration thinks there UAV strikes maintain American resolve and power overseas but I’m not so sure China or Russia think that pot shots from a glorified glider show that the US is invicible. I’m worried (and i hope i am wrong) that this reliance on techonology and quick strikes has steered us away from HUMINT and stregthening our connections with our [potential] allies.

  2. SGT Kane says:

    I’m a huge fan of keeping partisan politics out of war. If its an effective tool, use it. Use the full set of tools in the tool box and since we don’t exactly have a good working relationship with many of the countries these guys operate out of, police action isn’t a viable response.

    And so I have no issue with this. Well at least until it starts happening here. A US citizen goes over seas and tries to blow shit up, trains people to blow shit up, or raises money for those who blow shit up, fuck ’em.

    He’s suspected of doing the same thing CONUS, the government had better not be drone striking his ass. There’d better be a swat team and a shootout…

  3. Ex-PH2 says:

    What SGT Kane said. Don’t bring that to my neighborhood.

  4. NR Pax says:

    I’m not completely supportive of the idea. As Americans, we still have certain protections under the law no matter what we are accused of. And what is stopping someone from doing the strike on U.S. soil?

  5. Devtun says:

    Joe Scarborough’s “Morning Joe” isn’t always my cup of joe, but this is a excellent segment featuring Michael Isikoff.

    Drone Memo: ‘If George Bush Had Done This, It Would Have Been Stopped’
    Read more:

  6. James says:

    If you recall the hubub about GOFOs and others being asked if they would fire on American Citizens in CONUS, and the ones that said No were drummed out… I think there is a strong reason to be worried…

  7. MAJMike says:

    Well, kids, remember that Big Sis labeled conservative weapons-owning veterans and Tea Party supporters as potential terrorists that required watching by Government authorities.

    This has become a partisian political issue due, in large part, to the CriminalLiberalNewsMedia’s slobbering love for THE WON. THE WON gets a pass on anything that would’ve brought the Hounds of the Third Estate down on the necks of any Republican Administration. As the Administration’s program to disarm U.S. citizens continues, the need for killer drones will subside.

  8. Ex-PH2 says:

    James, please cite your sources. Thank you.

  9. Common Sense says:

    This is the part that scares me:

    “an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.”

    One, I prefer to stand by the Constitution and have a court and jury make that determination in the case of American citizens. I’d also prefer the military to go after high value foreign targets, not some hack in the White House.

    Two, that description echoes the description in numerous reports about “right-wing extremists”. I certainly don’t trust ANY government hack at ANY level to decide which “activities” make for a “threat of a violent attack”, especially the Obama Administration.

    Three, we already have no knock raids on innocent people and the beginnings of gun confiscation. It won’t take much for “informed, high-level officials” to make the jump from terrorists to law-abiding Americans who are protecting their Constitutional rights.

  10. PintoNag says:

    I’ve never thought of this administration as “fighting terrorism,” so much as “culling the herd.” Kind of a selective breeding program. Not trying to get rid of terrorists, so much as making them come to heel, like a well trained dog.

  11. Ex-PH2 says:

    This is an inspiration for satire, you know.

  12. SGT Kane says:

    I used to agree with you NR Pax, but my position has evolved when faced with the difficulties of bringing these guys to justice. We can’t send in SWAT after them. We can’t realistically send an ODA team every time we get a line on one of these guys, and in most cases, these guys are plenty proud and vocal about their “Death to America!” beliefs. So in these cases, a hellfire colonoscopy is just what the doctor ordered.

    What are the alternatives? We wait, letting them work their labor of love, until they expose themselves at a time and location where we can nab them and bring them to trial? Excluding the havoc they could unleash in that time (and keep in mind these are dumb people, Darwinism and AF Drone operators killed off the dumb ones a long time ago, logistically that’s a nightmare, troops on standby all over the globe, tough rotations of sitting around doing nothing for weeks and months on end, and then having to arrest them, turning our troops into police rather than stone cold killers, talk about mission and scope creep.

    So lets keep the drone strikes, but put in some sort of due process…

    I think that one scares me more than anything else. Secret trails conducted with the accused in absentia, represented by lawyers who drag out the process, resulting in years and years of efforts before a kill command can be sanctioned. How long would it be before that precedent was used locally? How long before you end up arrested at a traffic stop because you were convicted of a hate crime you’d never been arrested for?

    Which gives me the hives just thinking about it.

    What we have now, gives a tool on a global battle field that we can use, and use quickly and within reason.

    And as long as it stays that way, I’m ok with it. My fear is that it won’t though.

  13. Ex-PH2 says:

    News item this morning (2-7-2013) is that BO has approved letting Congress see the memo about pre-emptive drone usage.

    Don’t we, the people, already know? Should we have written to our congress critters to let them know, in case they didn’t? Does anyone not see the satire in this?