NYT: Obama and the 'Kill List'.

[Simon_Jester]

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/atty ... l-you.html

Boy, nice to see how the times have changed. All that 'why weren't you bitching when Bush was in office' can now be turned around as "why the fuck aren't you bitching NOW when you were bitching when Bush was in office'. Gotta love the ways in which partisans twist themselves into knots to keep their cognitive dissonance.

Out of morbid curiosity, were you bitching when Bush was in office?

Because I know I was bitching when Obama was in office...

[TheHammer]

Linked from Glenn Greenwald...

If you're "probably up to no good," President Obama wants to kill you

Since they chanted "Drill, baby, drill!" at the 2008 RNC, maybe they could chant "Kill, baby, kill" at the 2012 DNC when they re-nominate President Obama:

Mr. Obama has placed himself at the helm of a top secret “nominations” process to designate terrorists for kill or capture, of which the capture part has become largely theoretical. He had vowed to align the fight against Al Qaeda with American values; the chart, introducing people whose deaths he might soon be asked to order, underscored just what a moral and legal conundrum this could be.

Mr. Obama is the liberal law professor who campaigned against the Iraq war and torture, and then insisted on approving every new name on an expanding “kill list,” poring over terrorist suspects’ biographies on what one official calls the macabre “baseball cards” of an unconventional war.

It's kind of like that popular game "(Bleep), Marry or Kill" but without the "(Bleep)" or "Marry" part. The Times story at least starts out with something of a pro-Obama spin -- the anguished liberal, blah blah blah -- so it's better to get the straight story on this from Salon's Glenn Greenwald:

want specifically to highlight this one vital passage about how the Obama administration determines who is a “militant.” The article explains that Obama’s rhetorical emphasis on avoiding civilian deaths “did not significantly change” the drone program, because Obama himself simply expanded the definition of a “militant” to ensure that it includes virtually everyone killed by his drone strikes. Just read this remarkable passage:

Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.

Counterterrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good. “Al Qaeda is an insular, paranoid organization — innocent neighbors don’t hitchhike rides in the back of trucks headed for the border with guns and bombs,” said one official, who requested anonymity to speak about what is still a classified program.

This may be the ultimate example of something we've seen a lot in the last three and a half years, which we'll call, "If President Bush did this, liberals would be outraged." For what little it's worth, I'm fairly outraged. I do certainly approve of the raid and killing of Osama bin Laden and believe there was a time when al-Qaeda was stronger and more of a threat that these kind of attacks could be justified with solid intelligence.

But today the harm that's caused by raining death from machines in the sky down onto far too many civilians -- including someone's son, brother, or father who wasn't "up to no good" at all -- vastly outweighs any good. Righteous anger over the killing of civilians creates new terrorists faster than the killing of any old ones. As for the morally indefensible position that any male killed in such an attack is "probably up to no good," isn't the Obama administration saying the EXACT same thing that George Zimmerman said about Trayvon Martin?

Ponder that for a moment.

One more revolting thing is the news that a political adviser, David Axelrod, sat in on some of these meetings at which it was decided who would live and die.

If Karl Rove had done that (which he did, by the way). liberals would have been outraged.

UPDATE: Actually, the similarity with Zimmerman is even greater than I first thought. What he said to the Sanford police dispatcher was that Trayvon Martin "looks like he's up to no good." Thank God Zimmerman didn't have drones, huh?

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/atty ... l-you.html

Boy, nice to see how the times have changed. All that 'why weren't you bitching when Bush was in office' can now be turned around as "why the fuck aren't you bitching NOW when you were bitching when Bush was in office'. Gotta love the ways in which partisans twist themselves into knots to keep their cognitive dissonance.

The key detail being overlooked is that the people who are "up to no good" aren't being targeted directly. They do end up being collateral casualties, and maybe not counted as civillian deaths. But the fact is a great number of them probably are up to no good and I think we all know that. Obviously civilian deaths will be unavoidable if you wish to prosecute this war against militant groups. But that is the same as it has been in every war. As weapons get more precise that number has gone down quite a bit.

As for the persons who are being targeted, it seems clear that are afforded far more "due process" than any soldier on a battlefield. When this prospect of a secret "death panel" was first brought up there was a great amount of fear and worry about this power being abused. Having heard some details on the actual process someone goes through, I don't feel those worries were justified. As I said then, we elect Presidents to make these sorts of decisions. That's not a blank check. The President will be judged on the actions he takes and he knows that.

[Simon_Jester]

Personally, I didn't elect Obama to compile a hit list; that wasn't something I wanted him to do. Did you plan that?

Who will he be judged by, and when?

[TheHammer]

Personally, I didn't elect Obama to compile a hit list; that wasn't something I wanted him to do. Did you plan that?

Who will he be judged by, and when?

This President, like all others will be judged by history. His actions will be governed by that fact, as when you are president for a limited time your legacy is all that you really get to keep.

The President has the authority to command the military. When he orders military strikes he is ordering the deaths of people. We elected him knowing this, and we trust him to use such force very judiciously. Am I supposed to now be concerned because the deaths he is ordering have names attached to them? If anything, that should be more of a comfort than a concern. As I said, the individuals on that list go through far more rigorous due process than any soldier on a battlefield recieves.

Yes civilian casualties are a tragedy. However focusing on them as a reason to stop targeting militants is a very small view of the picture. You do what you can to mimimize them while still maintaining your edge. Its not wise to take the stance that if any innocents are in an area that we won't strike. Such a policy would simply lead to terrorists/militants keeping human shields.

It's all a numbers game when you are in the President's position. Pick your poision, less of two evils. What in the long term will result in fewer deaths? Do you back off strikes and give terrorist groups room to breathe? Say you do, civilian deaths go down and terrorist numbers go up. Then a terrorist attack succeeds on American soil. The sitting President is blamed by the opposing party and the American public will demand a massive retaliation. After all, why the hell are we paying all this money for the military if we are just going to let attacks on our soil go unanswered? If the sitting President doesn't retaliate, he will be voted out in favor of one who will. Then your civilian deaths will be far greater than a decade of drone strikes could ever do.

[Simon_Jester]

Personally, I didn't elect Obama to compile a hit list; that wasn't something I wanted him to do. Did you plan that?

Who will he be judged by, and when?

This President, like all others will be judged by history. His actions will be governed by that fact, as when you are president for a limited time your legacy is all that you really get to keep.

Various men, at various times, have thought history and their legacy demanded them to heap up pyramids of skulls. I don't think "answerable to history" is good enough; history can't throw a man in jail for being a thief or a murderer.

Then a terrorist attack succeeds on American soil. The sitting President is blamed by the opposing party and the American public will demand a massive retaliation. After all, why the hell are we paying all this money for the military if we are just going to let attacks on our soil go unanswered?

It was the best thing that ever happened to George W. Bush. It let him shift the focus of his presidency from domestic policies that were already becoming less and less popular even before 9/11... to a foreign policy of WIN WAR ON TERROR KILL ENEMY COMBATTERRORMILITANTENEMIES. While still getting to sneak in his domestic policy on the side.

If "history" is supposed to punish presidents for "allowing" terrorist attacks on their soil, then why did Bush Junior make out like a bandit from having been in charge on the day of the largest terrorist attack in American history?

[TheHammer]

Personally, I didn't elect Obama to compile a hit list; that wasn't something I wanted him to do. Did you plan that?

Who will he be judged by, and when?

This President, like all others will be judged by history. His actions will be governed by that fact, as when you are president for a limited time your legacy is all that you really get to keep.

Various men, at various times, have thought history and their legacy demanded them to heap up pyramids of skulls. I don't think "answerable to history" is good enough; history can't throw a man in jail for being a thief or a murderer.

The key difference is that many of the men you talk about needed those pyrimad of skulls to maintain power and position. A U.S. President has at most 8 years and then back to relative obscurity. Thus a President's goal isn't perpetual re-election which bogs down our congress, or maintaining your power like the dictators and tyrants you refer to. A president's main goal when it is all said and done is to be looked upon as a "good President". A hundred years from now we will all be dead, but a President's legacy will live on in the history books.

Then a terrorist attack succeeds on American soil. The sitting President is blamed by the opposing party and the American public will demand a massive retaliation. After all, why the hell are we paying all this money for the military if we are just going to let attacks on our soil go unanswered?

It was the best thing that ever happened to George W. Bush. It let him shift the focus of his presidency from domestic policies that were already becoming less and less popular even before 9/11... to a foreign policy of WIN WAR ON TERROR KILL ENEMY COMBATTERRORMILITANTENEMIES. While still getting to sneak in his domestic policy on the side.

If "history" is supposed to punish presidents for "allowing" terrorist attacks on their soil, then why did Bush Junior make out like a bandit from having been in charge on the day of the largest terrorist attack in American history?

I never said anything about History "punishing" presidents, merely judging them. I happen to believe that every President's ultimate goal is to be fondly remembered by history. Washington, FDR, Reagan, Lincoln... they want to be mentioned in that breath. Conversely, You don't want to be rememembered as another Nixon/Carter etc.

The terrorist attacks and the ensuing decisions that followed have left GWB with a tainted legacy. So much so that when his second term ended his entire party wanted to distance themselves from him. His VP is regarded as a darth vader esque villain. And he's still despised in many parts of the world. So when you say he "made out like a bandit" I'd have to disagree.

[TheHammer]

Say you do, civilian deaths go down and terrorist numbers go up.

The underwear bomber, Abdulmutallab, said: "I carried the device to avenge the killing of my Muslim brothers and sisters"

There will always be a reason to be pissed off about something. Always someone who feels wronged and can be turned into a weapon by the right charismatic person. If it hadn't been the "killing of Muslim brothers and sisters", it would have been because of the Great Satans offense of his religion.

I'm glad you brought up the underwear bomber though because that goes to a point. He was spurred to take the action by Anwar Awlaki, who by the way will not be recruiting any future underwear bombers thanks to the "Kill list".

[Grumman]

There will always be a reason to be pissed off about something. Always someone who feels wronged and can be turned into a weapon by the right charismatic person. If it hadn't been the "killing of Muslim brothers and sisters", it would have been because of the Great Satans offense of his religion.

If it hadn't been 9/11, would you be looking for some other excuse to kill Muslims? Are you just an easily manipulated pawn, or was it al-Qaeda's actions that shaped your response to them?

If al-Qaeda murdering innocent people can make you want them dead, do you not understand how the CIA murdering innocent people can make other people want them dead?

[Simon_Jester]

The key difference is that many of the men you talk about needed those pyrimad of skulls to maintain power and position. A U.S. President has at most 8 years and then back to relative obscurity. Thus a President's goal isn't perpetual re-election which bogs down our congress, or maintaining your power like the dictators and tyrants you refer to. A president's main goal when it is all said and done is to be looked upon as a "good President". A hundred years from now we will all be dead, but a President's legacy will live on in the history books.

So, your argument is that we don't actually need to keep an eye on abuse of presidential power... because of your psychoanalysis of all future presidents.

No way would a president be motivated by revenge against foreign or domestic enemies. Or by the idea that some idea or "enemy" ethnicity is so bad that it needs to be annihilated no matter the cost, and that "history will vindicate" him?

I mean seriously, the... OK, skip the Godwin's Law thing I don't even need it.

The Soviet Union was run by Marxist-Leninists who literally believed (or claimed to believe) that the world was inevitably moving towards a true communist order and that anything which hastened the day of that change was good. They didn't just think history would vindicate them, they thought it was a matter of inevitable universal law that history would vindicate them.

And yet they did many terrible things the world would have been better off if they hadn't done them. Their desire to be judged by history did not deter them, because they thought they understood history, well enough that they didn't need petty morality to tell them what to do when historic forces were in play.

What stops an American president from thinking the same way, only in the context of laissez-faire capitalism and American hegemony? If you think Fukuyama was right and "history" ended with "Western" triumph in 1991, so that all holdovers of socialism or Islam or whatever are just people who aren't getting with the program and need to be bulldozed under... how are you going to let a fear of being judged by "history" stop you from doing horrible things with that bulldozer?

I never said anything about History "punishing" presidents, merely judging them. I happen to believe that every President's ultimate goal is to be fondly remembered by history. Washington, FDR, Reagan, Lincoln... they want to be mentioned in that breath. Conversely, You don't want to be rememembered as another Nixon/Carter etc.

So? There is no rule that says a president will accurately predict what the future will think of them. Many people throughout history have thought the best way to secure a good future and be remembered for it was to do terrible things.

You wouldn't have to look very hard to find neocons from 2005 or so saying things that can be paraphrased as:

"The West is in a unique historical moment, standing for democratic capitalist civilization against the hate-maddened mobs of radical Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. We must defend ourselves, by any means necessary, no matter the cost, and history will justify us as it justified [insert World War II analogy here]"

A lot of people believed it- still believe it. A desire for good reputation is not a substitute for a conscience. They are simply not the same thing. Any psychopath can want a good reputation. Conscience is more difficult. And unless you can force conscience on national leaders, you damn well need a way to watch them and rein them in if they get out of line.

The terrorist attacks and the ensuing decisions that followed have left GWB with a tainted legacy. So much so that when his second term ended his entire party wanted to distance themselves from him. His VP is regarded as a darth vader esque villain. And he's still despised in many parts of the world. So when you say he "made out like a bandit" I'd have to disagree.

Without 9/11, it is very doubtful that Bush would have gotten a second term. Being the kind of president he was, he was inevitably going to be unpopular. 9/11 provided him with a massive artificial boost in his popularity, and means that he gets painted by at least some as a brave terrorism-fighter instead of a champion of crony capitalism.

Without 9/11, Cheney would still have been unpopular and Bush would have been, in all probability, a one term president. He nearly lost to Kerry as it was; what would his chances have been without the national security issue?

[TheHammer]

There will always be a reason to be pissed off about something. Always someone who feels wronged and can be turned into a weapon by the right charismatic person. If it hadn't been the "killing of Muslim brothers and sisters", it would have been because of the Great Satans offense of his religion.

If it hadn't been 9/11, would you be looking for some other excuse to kill Muslims? Are you just an easily manipulated pawn, or was it al-Qaeda's actions that shaped your response to them?

If al-Qaeda murdering innocent people can make you want them dead, do you not understand how the CIA murdering innocent people can make other people want them dead?

Fuck off you simple minded fool. The middle east is a very complex dynamic. The point I was making is that there are plenty of muslims who have recieved a shitty deal in life, convinced that the U.S. is responsible, and are manipulated as pawns themselves to "do the work of Allah".
After all, 9/11 wasn't in response to drone strikes now was it?

Wrote a lot of stuff

Just a few short points... When I talk about history juding these leaders is that ultimately that is all that will last. Person's willing to abuse power to the point that you fear do so because they have no fear of the law to begin with. And if they are able to abuse power to that extent, then there is probably precious little we would be able to do about it. I don't disagree on many of your points, and I don't think that we should give President's unlimited power. In fact, we probably agree more than we disagree on many of these issues...

But It seems to me that the question at hand which is, is the "Kill list" really an abuse of Presidential power? I don't think that it is for the reasons I mentioned. That's really the issue I'm interested in discussing, rather than going down a tangent. If the President as CnC can already order airstrikes on "military targets", why would this be of additional concern? Particularly given the fact that it seems to be a far more judicious process than target selections made in the field based on limited-at-the-time intelligence.

[Grumman]

If al-Qaeda murdering innocent people can make you want them dead, do you not understand how the CIA murdering innocent people can make other people want them dead?

Fuck off you simple minded fool. The middle east is a very complex dynamic. The point I was making is that there are plenty of muslims who have recieved a shitty deal in life, convinced that the U.S. is responsible, and are manipulated as pawns themselves to "do the work of Allah".
After all, 9/11 wasn't in response to drone strikes now was it?

Do you not understand the concept of "more"? If nothing else, don't you think giving people "a shitty deal in life" by killing their loved ones with airstrikes might make them more vulnerable to al-Qaeda's message?

[Block]

If al-Qaeda murdering innocent people can make you want them dead, do you not understand how the CIA murdering innocent people can make other people want them dead?

Fuck off you simple minded fool. The middle east is a very complex dynamic. The point I was making is that there are plenty of muslims who have recieved a shitty deal in life, convinced that the U.S. is responsible, and are manipulated as pawns themselves to "do the work of Allah".
After all, 9/11 wasn't in response to drone strikes now was it?

Do you not understand the concept of "more"? If nothing else, do you not understand how someone might perceive the murder of their loved ones as "receiving a shitty deal in life" and thus become more vulnerable to al-Qaeda's message?

Frankly drone strikes are a very minor recruiting tool. Unemployment/poverty and cultural/religious intolerance are really the two main drivers of new soldiers for terrorism, and have been for decades.

[Simon_Jester]

Unemployment, poverty, and religious fanaticism would create rebels. What CIA drone strikes do is focus that rebellion on us, instead of on targets closer to home.

There is really no logical reason, no deep cause in the natural order, why the US and radical Islam have to be each other's mortal enemies. If Muslim fundamentalists wanted to stay at home and oppress each other while leaving us alone they could; if the US wanted to ignore the Middle East as long as the oil's on sale, it could. It's physically possible.

What keeps the two sides of this conflict fighting each other is the constant back and forth killing and creation of martyrs on both sides (what are the victims of 9/11 if not America's list of martyrs to justify ongoing war?). Constant CIA drone bombings create those martyrs and help to keep Islamic fundamentalists focused on us as "the real enemy," the one who has to be defeated if they are to accomplish any of their desires. Which means we end up permanently having to watch our backs...

[shakes head]

[TheHammer]

If al-Qaeda murdering innocent people can make you want them dead, do you not understand how the CIA murdering innocent people can make other people want them dead?

Fuck off you simple minded fool. The middle east is a very complex dynamic. The point I was making is that there are plenty of muslims who have recieved a shitty deal in life, convinced that the U.S. is responsible, and are manipulated as pawns themselves to "do the work of Allah".
After all, 9/11 wasn't in response to drone strikes now was it?

Do you not understand the concept of "more"? If nothing else, don't you think giving people "a shitty deal in life" by killing their loved ones with airstrikes might make them more vulnerable to al-Qaeda's message?

What I was referring to was your conveniently snipped comment about "looking for some other reason to kill Muslims" which was absolutely asinine. No one is going out with the idea of "killing muslims" you dishonest shithead.

Will drone strikes that call civilians cause their loved ones to get pissed off, and spur some of them to do something about it? Sure it would. That's why you take whatever steps you can to minimize that happening while continuing to keep the heat on militant groups. The other alternative to drone strikes would be: to send in conventional military forces to take these guys out, some form of appeasement (will never happen), or let them run amuck (which is what we did in the 90s). I think, all in all, the drone strikes are more effective than any of the other realistic alternatives.

Unemployment, poverty, and religious fanaticism would create rebels. What CIA drone strikes do is focus that rebellion on us, instead of on targets closer to home.

Except for the fact that the religious leadership to which they all ascribe are more than willing to place the blame for all their ills on the West. Poor? Its because of the United States. Unemployed? Its because the US took yer jobs! Had some misfortune happen? Its because God is angry that you are allowing the Western infidels in the holy land. And those are just the fake reasons, there are plenty of others including our support of Israel, the unneccessary Iraq invasion etc. Hell. doesn't even have to be the government. One of our retarded fundamentalist pastors encouraging a Koran bonfire, or some European cartoonist drawing a Muhammad caricture is enough to drive them to violence. And the governments of the mideast are all too willing to oblige this "West is the great Satan" idea because it keeps the spotlight off their own failings and abuses of power.

There is really no logical reason, no deep cause in the natural order, why the US and radical Islam have to be each other's mortal enemies. If Muslim fundamentalists wanted to stay at home and oppress each other while leaving us alone they could; if the US wanted to ignore the Middle East as long as the oil's on sale, it could. It's physically possible.

Your problem is trying to ascribe logic to the situation. Muslim fundamentalists need their boogeyman just as much as our fundamentalists here at home need one. The problem is, if you believe in these boogeyman long enough and hard enough they start to become real. And once you've made them real, then your only option is to beat them back. That's the situation both sides are in right now.

What keeps the two sides of this conflict fighting each other is the constant back and forth killing and creation of martyrs on both sides (what are the victims of 9/11 if not America's list of martyrs to justify ongoing war?). Constant CIA drone bombings create those martyrs and help to keep Islamic fundamentalists focused on us as "the real enemy," the one who has to be defeated if they are to accomplish any of their desires. Which means we end up permanently having to watch our backs...

[shakes head]

Its not about revenge at this point. Bin Laden was as much revenge as about preventing further attacks, but these new strikes are about preventing the next Al Qaeda from rising up. As I noted before, there were no drone strikes to prompt the 9/11 and earlier attacks. And yes of course when people's families get killed they will get angry. But not all of them will actually do anything about it. After all, they are oppressed by their own governments and they just take it day in and day out. The thing about drone strikes though, is that they remove those people who are willing to "do something about it".

As for permanently watching our backs, there is no getting away from that no matter what we do. To put a spin on an an old saying, the price for leadership is eternal vigilance. As long as we are a global power we will always have to be wary of the next threat.

[Simon_Jester]

Just a few short points... When I talk about history juding these leaders is that ultimately that is all that will last. Person's willing to abuse power to the point that you fear do so because they have no fear of the law to begin with.

If they don't fear the law, let them fear the hangman.

The US (and most of the developed world) have already managed to exterminate things like petty bribery of public officials while in office. There are loopholes I could name, but at least you can't just bypass things like licensing procedures by waving a bundle of cash under someone's nose, which works in much of the Third World. And when you're up for re-election (so torturing the opposition to death isn't a workable answer), there's a lot less incentive to commit human rights violations than there is to accept bribes.

We could end human rights violations if we wanted to prosecute them consistently. The fear that this would be done, the willingness to obey the damn law, has worked many times on many people. It's only breaking down now, after a president who really did think he was above the law had the balls to try it, and a pack of people like you jumped up to defend him.

Because you have been defending the idea of presidency-as-temporary-absolute-monarchy, you help to make it true. It doesn't have to be true, as long as free citizens are (unlike you) willing to oppose small abuses before they grow into big ones that would take a revolution to stop.

Those of us who would be unhappy living under fascism need to do something about this. Unfortunately there's a pack of fools in the way, but I still hold out some hope that this can be dealt with.

Unemployment, poverty, and religious fanaticism would create rebels. What CIA drone strikes do is focus that rebellion on us, instead of on targets closer to home.

Except for the fact that the religious leadership to which they all ascribe are more than willing to place the blame for all their ills on the West. Poor? Its because of the United States. Unemployed? Its because the US took yer jobs! Had some misfortune happen? Its because God is angry that you are allowing the Western infidels in the holy land. And those are just the fake reasons, there are plenty of others including our support of Israel, the unneccessary Iraq invasion etc. Hell. doesn't even have to be the government. One of our retarded fundamentalist pastors encouraging a Koran bonfire, or some European cartoonist drawing a Muhammad caricture is enough to drive them to violence. And the governments of the mideast are all too willing to oblige this "West is the great Satan" idea because it keeps the spotlight off their own failings and abuses of power.

If you do not know or care about the reasons why the US got picked as the boogeyman for Islamic fundamentalists, I don't want to waste time and energy explaining it to you this time.

I suggest Destiny Disrupted, by Tamim Ansary, it's at your reading level and explains a lot without taking a propaganda tone.

As for permanently watching our backs, there is no getting away from that no matter what we do. To put a spin on an an old saying, the price for leadership is eternal vigilance. As long as we are a global power we will always have to be wary of the next threat.

And, of course, we must remain globally dominant. The purpose of power is power. The purpose of torture is torture.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but the worse an empire-by-brutality is and the longer it lasts, the more utterly it's destroyed when it loses the power to keep being brutal. There are a lot of reasons why the US might one day lose a lot of its power. Some of them, like demographics, can't be denied forever. By setting ourselves up as an empire, we set ourselves up for a fall much worse than what a mere republic might suffer.

[TheHammer]

Just a few short points... When I talk about history juding these leaders is that ultimately that is all that will last. Person's willing to abuse power to the point that you fear do so because they have no fear of the law to begin with.

If they don't fear the law, let them fear the hangman.

That's the thing, they don't fear the hangman because in order for that to come into play they'd first have to fear the law that they are breaking.

The US (and most of the developed world) have already managed to exterminate things like petty bribery of public officials while in office. There are loopholes I could name, but at least you can't just bypass things like licensing procedures by waving a bundle of cash under someone's nose, which works in much of the Third World. And when you're up for re-election (so torturing the opposition to death isn't a workable answer), there's a lot less incentive to commit human rights violations than there is to accept bribes.

LOL exterminated petty bribery? If you want some recent examples of how WRONG that is, you could start with Lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Senator Ted Stevens, and a couple of former governors of the great State of Illinois: George Ryan and Rod Blagojevich.

We could end human rights violations if we wanted to prosecute them consistently. The fear that this would be done, the willingness to obey the damn law, has worked many times on many people. It's only breaking down now, after a president who really did think he was above the law had the balls to try it, and a pack of people like you jumped up to defend him.

Because you have been defending the idea of presidency-as-temporary-absolute-monarchy, you help to make it true. It doesn't have to be true, as long as free citizens are (unlike you) willing to oppose small abuses before they grow into big ones that would take a revolution to stop.

Those of us who would be unhappy living under fascism need to do something about this. Unfortunately there's a pack of fools in the way, but I still hold out some hope that this can be dealt with.

Your attempt to straw man my position isn't going to work. No where did I assert that the President was given a "temporary absolute monarchy", simply that having a kill list as described in the article was already part of his powers as commander-n-chief. If you wish to debate that then feel free to make some points specific to that aspect.

Unemployment, poverty, and religious fanaticism would create rebels. What CIA drone strikes do is focus that rebellion on us, instead of on targets closer to home.

Except for the fact that the religious leadership to which they all ascribe are more than willing to place the blame for all their ills on the West. Poor? Its because of the United States. Unemployed? Its because the US took yer jobs! Had some misfortune happen? Its because God is angry that you are allowing the Western infidels in the holy land. And those are just the fake reasons, there are plenty of others including our support of Israel, the unneccessary Iraq invasion etc. Hell. doesn't even have to be the government. One of our retarded fundamentalist pastors encouraging a Koran bonfire, or some European cartoonist drawing a Muhammad caricture is enough to drive them to violence. And the governments of the mideast are all too willing to oblige this "West is the great Satan" idea because it keeps the spotlight off their own failings and abuses of power.

If you do not know or care about the reasons why the US got picked as the boogeyman for Islamic fundamentalists, I don't want to waste time and energy explaining it to you this time.

I suggest Destiny Disrupted, by Tamim Ansary, it's at your reading level and explains a lot without taking a propaganda tone.

Its not that I don't care, in fact I believe I just named a few of the reasons why the U.S. got picked to be the boogeyman. I'm well aware of history in the region.

And your asinine condescension is dismissed. Further comments along those lines will be met with a "Go fuck yourself".

As for permanently watching our backs, there is no getting away from that no matter what we do. To put a spin on an an old saying, the price for leadership is eternal vigilance. As long as we are a global power we will always have to be wary of the next threat.

And, of course, we must remain globally dominant. The purpose of power is power. The purpose of torture is torture.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but the worse an empire-by-brutality is and the longer it lasts, the more utterly it's destroyed when it loses the power to keep being brutal. There are a lot of reasons why the US might one day lose a lot of its power. Some of them, like demographics, can't be denied forever. By setting ourselves up as an empire, we set ourselves up for a fall much worse than what a mere republic might suffer.

I'd say the purpose of power is to be master of your own destiny. And the point I made still stands. Whether or not in your view we should, the U.S. is going to try and maintain its power and position for as long as it can. And as long as we take that stance, there will always be external threats that we have to watch our back for.

[Elfdart]

I pointed out a while back how funny it is that we have a president from the same state that gave us Abraham Lincoln who has adopted the tactics of John Wilkes Booth. Now he's adopting the tactics of Quantrill, who also decided that every able-bodied male in the area was a legitimate target for extrajudicial killing. I suppose if he gets reelected he'll seek to emulate Nathan Bedford Forrest.