Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Hypocrisy?

February 28, 2013

We read with interest the recent editorial qualms concerning the conduct of warfare. The editorial sees the killing of enemy combatants as "executions"....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(30)

gavinf56

Feb-28-13 5:44 AM

Targeting a specific individual enemy combatant for termination is an assassination. Plain and simple and there is no other way around it.

During WWII, "Operation Vengeance" took out Admiral Yamamoto and has always been considered an assassination.

I fully support these type of actions against foreign enemy combatants.

I do however have some reservations on targeting American citizens abroad and President Bush NEVER did that.

A 15 year old American citizen was killed by a drone strike in Yemen last year, and this administration has yet to tell us why, and we hear not a peep from those on the left. There is the hypocrisy.

12 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CarlHiller

Feb-28-13 6:03 AM

Gavin - couldn't have said it any better.

10 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Josh84

Feb-28-13 7:17 AM

"Multiple surveys of Iraq war veterans find the overwhelming majority find it was a war that was not worth fighting."--Robert Nible

I suppose you'll have to provide sources. Closest thing I could find to support your statement said 1 in 3. Hardly a majority now isn't it.

11 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Transplant

Feb-28-13 7:38 AM

Dr. Nible - It is SEAL, not Seal. SEAL is an acronym for SEa Air Land. Seal is a marine mammal. To my knowledge, DEVGRU, Delta or other military special mission units attached to JSOC are relieved by Prediential Order of Posse Comitatus. They are authorized certain operations against US Citizens, subject to CONSIDERABLE due process. AFAIK, that has never been implemented. The most they have been tasked with is advising FBI HRT and local LEO at such things as Waco, Atlanta and LA Olympics, etc. The use of drones (or Police, Military SMUs, etc) to target US Citizens, here or abroad, MUST NOT be allowed without clear and auditable due process accorded by the 5th Amendment.

12 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

philunderwood

Feb-28-13 7:55 AM

Drone strikes are far superior to sending in troops, but I fully agree that due process must be required. No one, even the POTUS has the ability to order a killing under any conditions without due process if we’re going to remain a nation of laws, not men.

11 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Feb-28-13 8:20 AM

"I do however have some reservations on targeting American citizens abroad and President Bush NEVER did that." - gavinf56

*

Fine. Let's turn-back the clock...to WWII.

If an American had relocated, to Germany, and swore allegiance to the Nazi Party...would HE still have been considered an American...with Constitutional-protections??

I'm guessing not...even though no Nazis ever committed any terrorist-acts, in the U.S.

Anwar Al-Awlaki had been linked to an attempted bombing of a U.S. passenger jet over Detroit on Christmas day, 2009. George Jr. would have had ZERO problems ordering the "hit", on him.

4 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Feb-28-13 8:23 AM

"Multiple surveys of Iraq war veterans find the overwhelming majority find it was a war that was not worth fighting."--Robert Nible

I suppose you'll have to provide sources. Closest thing I could find to support your statement said 1 in 3." - Josh84

*

I suppose you'll have to provide sources, to verify that.

1 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Feb-28-13 8:33 AM

"George Jr. would have had ZERO problems ordering the "hit", on him."- MrShaman

"I suppose you'll have to provide sources, to verify that."- MrShaman

Do tell Skippy.

10 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nobud74

Feb-28-13 8:35 AM

The editorial fails to note that the drone policy was begun under President Bush.--Dr. Nible.

Why is it always the fallback of those who want make a point that it is ok if we continue a poor judgement because someone in the past did it? It makes no sense and is a very weak argument.

How do you all feel about our govt using drones for domestic law enforcement? It is like a sci-fi novel. It scares the heck out of me. Freedoms and privacy are slowly trickling away.

12 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Feb-28-13 8:44 AM

Dr. Nible blurs the lines, a common liberal tactic. The use of drones by the Bush administration was limited to the theatre of operation in the war we were then fighting. Obama has used them, in violation of international law, in countries where we are not currently engaged in hostilities. I do not have a problem with this personally, but liberals do when there is a Republican President. The more problematic detail of the drone program is the targeting of Americans who are not actively engaging the U.S. Military, being killed without due process. The President does not have the authority to unilaterally pronounce a death sentence on a US citizen. I don't have a problem with executing Americans who want to do us harm, but let's get the process right.

16 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

philunderwood

Feb-28-13 8:59 AM

There seems to be a problem with consistency for those who condemn our founders for what we consider wrong doing today while justifying things our current leaders do by saying it was done by previous administrations.

12 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Feb-28-13 9:15 AM

Correct me if I am wrong but the Bush administration did have a 'hit' list of terrorists which included Saddam and his cabinet and his sons. A lot of them were not captured and tried.

You are crossing a fine line here either way. Americans who are going to be in place of war and associate with people connected to terrorists are going be casualties of war.

Was the 15 yearold the one who was targeted?

1 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Feb-28-13 9:18 AM

"There seems to be a problem with consistency for those who condemn our founders for what we consider wrong doing today while justifying things our current leaders do by saying it was done by previous administrations."

Wow Phil you just stepped in it!

1 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

philunderwood

Feb-28-13 10:03 AM

How so Chuck?

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Feb-28-13 10:58 AM

Chuck,"Correct me if I am wrong but the Bush administration did have a 'hit' list of terrorists which included Saddam and his cabinet and his sons."

OK, You are wrong. We had a list of Iraqi government officials to be found and captured. Even if it had been a kill list as you claim, none of them were American citizens. Saddam's sons were killed during active fighting. They were military leaders and as such legitimate targets. They also were not killed with drones, they were killed by bombs dropped by manned aircraft. How many errors can a person make in one sentence? I think we have a new world record. Congratulations Chuck!

10 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Class144

Feb-28-13 11:37 AM

"They also were not killed with drones, they were killed by bombs dropped by manned aircraft."

Wrong. They were killed in a firefight on the ground. How can you expect to be taken seriously on subjects of International Law, when you post falsehoods that seem intent on fostering your agenda(s)?

Congratulations.

6 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Feb-28-13 11:49 AM

Not playing the game with you Phil. You backed previous administrations by using the Founding Fathers and then say this administration is wrong for doing the same thing.

2 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Feb-28-13 11:54 AM

OK Class, I stand corrected. They were killed in a firefight, but not by drones. If they had surrendered they would have been captured instead. That's even further from the Obama routine. Thanks for the support. It supports my point even better that Bush did not have a kill list. Capturing is much better from a tactical outlook, because dead men don't answer questions. The bottom line is that the Obama kill list includes Americans and the administration will not even say that it will not use drone strikes against US citizens in the United States. That means that while they may not have plans to do it, they will not rule it out. That is against the law, not to mention unconstitutional.

8 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Feb-28-13 11:58 AM

Dang enigma you set a new record for dancing around the truth. It was a hit list, dead or alive it mattered not. They also had terrorists on that list. They even had 'playing cards' of them. Military actions? So drones strikes are not based with the military at all. We have a war on terror but apparently it is not a military operation at all. How do you tell an American fighting terrorist from a non-American fighting terrorist?

5 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Feb-28-13 12:00 PM

Not a kill list, a hit list. Bush said dead or alive, just as long as we got them.

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Class144

Feb-28-13 12:11 PM

"Capturing is much better from a tactical outlook, because dead men don't answer questions."

Is it? And who told you that? Just exactly how does one capture a dead man? You continue twisting yourself into a knot on subject matters that seem vague on.

5 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Class144

Feb-28-13 12:20 PM

“It supports my point even better that Bush did not have a kill list.” You don’t have a point. You know nothing about Special Operations. Therefore, you have no idea what DevGru, in conjunction with JSOC did under Bush during his war.

If I were a betting man, I’d wager there were several high profile targets that were pursued by Rangers, or Delta, or SEALs, during that time. That’s how it works. Who cares about semantics?

5 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

KrazyK

Feb-28-13 12:34 PM

Bush 43 declared war on terrorism. As Commander-in-Chief he chose to invade countries to kill terrorists. Obama's policy is to take out terrorists with intelligence and technology. Ask any soldier which method is preferred.

5 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Feb-28-13 8:01 PM

"Bush 43 declared war on terrorism." - KrazyK

Actually, it was terrorism declared war on us.

11 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Class144

Feb-28-13 11:29 PM

"Actually, it was terrorism declared war on us."

One only wonders what might have happened had Bush 43 not chosen to ignore the August 6th PDB, which said that Bin Laden was determined to strike in the US by Hijacking planes.

Enough said.

0 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 30 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web