Image 01 Image 03

Kill lists for me, but not for thee

Kill lists for me, but not for thee

The use of drone strikes has been expanded dramatically under Obama.  The personal involvement of the President in the intimate details of targeting and kill lists  is new to this administration.

It’s not something Democrats like to talk about. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz denied knowledge of the kill lists, promting this response from Glenn Greenwald, The remarkable, unfathomable ignorance of Debbie Wasserman Schultz

One expects corrupt partisan loyalty from people like Wasserman Schultz, eager to excuse anything and everything a Democratic president does. That’s a total abdication of her duty as a member of Congress, but that’s par for the course. But one does not expect this level of ignorance, the ability to stay entirely unaware of one of the most extremist powers a president has claimed in US history, trumpeted on the front-page of the New York Times and virtually everywhere else.

But heaven forbid Mitt Romney had won, then there needed to be institutionalized rules, via The NY Times, Election Spurred a Move to Codify U.S. Drone Policy:

Facing the possibility that President Obama might not win a second term, his administration accelerated work in the weeks before the election to develop explicit rules for the targeted killing of terrorists by unmanned drones, so that a new president would inherit clear standards and procedures, according to two administration officials.

The attempt to write a formal rule book for targeted killing began last summer after news reports on the drone program, started under President George W. Bush and expanded by Mr. Obama, revealed some details of the president’s role in the shifting procedures for compiling “kill lists” and approving strikes. Though national security officials insist that the process is meticulous and lawful, the president and top aides believe it should be institutionalized, a course of action that seemed particularly urgent when it appeared that Mitt Romney might win the presidency.

“There was concern that the levers might no longer be in our hands,” said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity. With a continuing debate about the proper limits of drone strikes, Mr. Obama did not want to leave an “amorphous” program to his successor, the official said. The effort, which would have been rushed to completion by January had Mr. Romney won, will now be finished at a more leisurely pace, the official said.

Mr. Obama himself, in little-noticed remarks, has acknowledged that the legal governance of drone strikes is still a work in progress.

Put aside how you feel about the drone strikes, or a President selecting kill lists.

The arrogance Obama to think that he alone could be trusted with such power without rules is staggering.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


“The arrogance Obama to think that he alone could be trusted with such power without rules is staggering.”

What’s next?

Michael Vick pens “The Total Guide to Caring for Your New Puppy”?

I don’t think it’s accurate to call Schultz ‘ignorant,’ because it provides a cover for her evil behavior.

Rather, it is accurate to call her ‘malignant,’ because she so willingly participates in lies and fraud against our country, as does most of the Democrat leadership.

For the umpteenth time: the Democrat party is a fascist movement. Truth and values are as irrelevant now as they were to every other fascist movement in history.

Doing evil is not doing ignorance.

We ain’t seen anything yet. Wait till drones are flying over our cities. Drones were flying over the consulate in Benghazi when Al-Qaida operatives attacked it and killed stevens and his three friends. Could it be Stevens was on that kill list? We may never know. In his first term Obama was already acting like Morsi, waving his hand and declaring Illegals were no longer Illegal. If the GOP and other representatives that still believe in our constitution don’t grow a pair, Obama will do more hand waving in his next four years. By the time he’s finished, millions more will be out of work and on food stamps and other welfare programs. When that happens Obama will declare himself President for life. Lets hope one of those drones backfires on him.

Thank you for calling Democratism what it is–a fascist movement.

TrooperJohnSmith | November 25, 2012 at 6:19 pm

Prez-O-Bama is much more astute than any other leader or politician when it comes to drones. You know, it takes one to know one.

Also, calling Debbie Wasserman-Schlitz “ignorant” is patently unfair those people who are legitimately ignorant, a common condition, which is often not their fault. She is much more deserving of the more appropriate pejoratives, stupid, dishonest, evil, corrupt and liar.

“The arrogance [of] Obama to think that he alone could be trusted with such power without rules is staggering.”

Not if you frame him as the Collectivist narcissist that he is.

Then, all becomes readily explicable. We have not seen the end, either.

    Doug Wright in reply to Ragspierre. | November 25, 2012 at 6:36 pm

    How dare you infer that Obama is going to pull a “Morsi” on this country, the one He rules! What are you really trying to say, eh?

    Oh, pardon me, I forgot about the rumored fact that he’s now trying for a third term. 😉

Do we even know the body count? Whose more effective, Obama or the streets of Chicago? Can we add the toll of the Arab Spring to his tally? Throw in Afghanistan? The Fascist left must be so proud!

And the Democrats demonstrate, once again, that the issue is not war or targeted assassinations or enhanced interrogation techniques or indefinite detentions but, instead, whether it is a Republican or a Democrat who is President.

    IceColdTroll in reply to LIDavidD. | November 26, 2012 at 1:34 am

    I would agree with your sentiments, but will go a bit against the grain here and say that I don’t have a problem with the use of drones to take out enemy combatants in the field. In our own skies, for ambiguous purposes, yes, that’s definitely an issue. In foreign skies, I would maybe prefer seeing them left in the hands of local command, to prevent their possible misuse as tools to score political points rather than military objectives. In any war,there will always be “collateral damage,” although I do dislike that phrase as a euphemism for “We killed innocent people by mistake.” Targeting specific high-level enemy leaders for assassination is a recognized tactic — we took out Yamamoto in WW2, and of course were behind the scenes in the attempted assassination of Hitler. Like any other weapon of war, drones and drone strikes are simply a tool, and potential problems lie in who uses them, rather than the tool itself.

    To the best of my knowledge, the only substantive controversy over drone strikes has been in regard to a US citizen who had taken up arms with al-Q against the US. That conceivably made him a traitor and guilty of treason, for which he might have been entitled to a trial under specific conditions laid out in the Constitution — but regardless of his citizenship, he was an enemy combatant, BY DEFINITION. I believe we had the right to take him out, by whatever means available.

    If any of you look back at my previous posts here, you will know I am no fan of Sock Puppet. However, with what he has been doing with drone strikes — so far at least — I find no fault in it. (Just about everything else, well…)

      tamerlane in reply to IceColdTroll. | November 26, 2012 at 11:00 pm

      You are incorrect about the ‘enemy combatant’ status of Anwar Al-Alawki. He was an American citizen accused (never charged or indicted) of aiding and abetting a terrorist organization. He deserved a public trial under the Sixth Amendment.

      Further, anyone engaged in terrorist activities is a criminal, subject to arrest and trial. To label them an ‘enemy combatant’ (a term without meaning in international law, btw) is to legitimize their acts of terror as lawful acts of war. At best, they are francs
      tireurs, but only if acting in a war zone; otherwise, civil criminals just like Terry McVeigh or Bill Ayres.

      Only those captured while fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan could be considered “lawful combatants”, as they were fighting under an organized military structure for the deposed, former government of that nation – a recognized Belligerent, unlike al-quaeda. Their treatment is covered by Art IV of the Geneva Convention, and their acts cannot be prosecuted in a court of law.

      obama’s drone attacks on foreign nationals are a gross violation of the international law treaties to which the US is a signatory. His drone assassinations of US citizens is an egregious violation of the Constitution. Every American patriot should be outraged.

Don’t count on the GOP ‘growing a pair.’

WE need to ‘grow a pair’ and enforce our will on the GOP.

[…] differently, but like William Jacobson said, as far as Obama’s concerned it’s “Kill lists for me but not for thee!”I guess the New York Times didn’t see the irony or the hypocrisy.Facing the possibility […]

“… to develop explicit rules for the targeted killing of terrorists by unmanned drones, so that a new president would inherit clear standards and procedures….”

There might be some such rules laying around somewhere already —

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury …, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”

[…] line) Egypt´s President Doesn´t Understand Why Everybody´s So Mad at Him Egomaniacs seldom do Kill lists for me, but not for thee The next time some anti-war lefty gets in your face with the whole “warmonger” thing, […]

William A. Jacobson: The arrogance Obama to think that he alone could be trusted with such power without rules is staggering.

Obama: “One of the things we’ve got to do is put legal architecture in place and we need congressional help in order to do that, to make sure that not only am I reined in but any president is reined in, in terms of some of the decisions we’re making”

tamerlane: There might be some such rules laying around somewhere already –

Enemy combatants are eligible for due process once they lay down their arms and surrender.

    tamerlane in reply to Zachriel. | November 26, 2012 at 11:24 pm

    There is not such thing as an ‘enemy combatant’. Bush invented the term ‘enemy combatants’ because he wanted to have his cake an eat it, too. “Lawful combatants” may be held as PoW’s until the cessation of hostilities. “Unlawful combatants” may be tried by military tribunals. Combatants may not be punished for legitimate acts of violence, but may be for war crimes.

    The Geneva and Hague Conventions, of which the US is a signatory, clearly and specifically define the: Actions and conditions that determine lawful vs. unlawful combatant status; Humane treatment of lawful combatants; Permitted actions against unlawful combatants; Definition of war crimes; Scope of a war zone, outside of which all acts of violence are not deemed “combat,” rather criminal activity.

    If you don’t like that, convince Congress to abrogate those treaties.

      tamerlane: There is not such thing as an ‘enemy combatant’. Bush invented the term ‘enemy combatants’ because he wanted to have his cake an eat it, too.

      The term is old; for instance, Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field. Geneva, 22 August 1864

      Bush conflated the term with unlawful combatant with the intention of holding people indefinitely without legal status.

      Returning to the original point, those who wage war against the U.S. are legitimate military targets. However, accountability in the use of force is imperative—something Congress should act upon.

      Nor is it necessary under the laws of war for the enemy to be armed and in proper formation.