Collateral Damage

[billc]

I'll do some more...

Obama has admitted to approving each target on the "kill list".

Tgace, that last post just shows you have bought into the lies about our President. Obviously, a tea-bagger conservative wrote that story. Everyone knows that Bush killed terrorists because he liked to kill people. Everyone knows that obama only kills terrorists because he loves us and wants us to be safe...so in reality it isn't really a "kill," list. It is actually a "love," list, since each name on the list represents obama showing his love for us. You should be disappointed in yourself for doubting our President's love...

 

[Makalakumu]

Obama has admitted to approving each target on the "kill list".

Isn't this a step up from simply leaving the wet work to be approved by subordinates like, Bush did? Of course, it's still evil, except that Obama is more honest.

 

[Tgace]

Hell I really don't care all THAT much either way.

The initial posts here implied that these drone strikes were unapproved CIA "cowboying". Fact of the matter is they have always been subject to a maze of agency approvals...NSA...State Dept...etc. But its the president who now approves of the entire "list" and each individual strike.



Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[billc]

"love," list.

 

[Makalakumu]

Hell I really don't care all THAT much either way.

The initial posts here implied that these drone strikes were unapproved CIA "cowboying". Fact of the matter is they have always been subject to a maze of agency approvals...NSA...State Dept...etc. But its the president who now approves of the entire "list" and each individual strike.



Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

There is a moral reason to care. Our labor is being taxed by the government to perpetrate this. At the very least, I would hope that you would expect the government to behave in a morally defensible way.

Another thing to consider is that the President is just the end of a long line of people that need to act before something like a drone strike killing innocent children can happen. Does the president own the responsibility for that decision or does everyone who passed the order on down the line own responsibility as well?

 

[Tgace]

There is a moral reason to care. Our labor is being taxed by the government to perpetrate this. At the very least, I would hope that you would expect the government to behave in a morally defensible way.

Another thing to consider is that the President is just the end of a long line of people that need to act before something like a drone strike killing innocent children can happen. Does the president own the responsibility for that decision or does everyone who passed the order on down the line own responsibility as well?

I mean "care" as in context to this discussion...

"Responsibility"? Depends on if he considers himself a leader or not. I was always taught that the leader was ultimately responsible...otherwise why have leaders?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Tgace]

Two maxims are inculcated into naval culture. The first is that if a ship runs aground, it is the captain’s responsibility. The second is that the captain is always responsible, even if he or she isn’t. These are not just words by the U.S. Navy —the Navy backs them up. Many skippers have been relieved of command for collisions or groundings. For example, according to the 17 September 2010 edition of Navy Times, two commanding officers, both holding the rank of commander (O-5), were relieved in 2010 for collisions. Being relieved under these circumstances is the norm in the Navy, part of their professional ethic. Navy ship and submarine commanders have an expectation that they should and will be relieved of their duties when incidents of this nature occur on their watch. This expectation is different than a performance or behavior standard. According to the same issue of Navy Times, 12 other commanders and captains (O-6s) were relieved for inappropriate conduct, temperament and demeanor, or loss of confidence in the ability to command.

-Lt Col Joe Doty

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[K-man]

K-man...I find your lack of faith in President obama...disturbing...

Quite the contrary. I think he is the best President you have had for many years. It's a pity the Republicans won't let him do what the people of America elected him to do.

However, as the head of any organisation, he has to rely on the integrity and honesty of those who advise him. I find your faith in the honesty and integrity of the CIA ... disturbing... ! :asian:

 

[billc]

K-man that is an interesting take. In my Russian history class, the professor said that the Russian peasants during the time of the Tzar Nicholas never blamed him for the horrible things the government did to them...they always believed that he just didn't know what was going on, and if he did, he would fix the problem...it was the Tzar's advisors who were the problem...not the Tzar...

 

[K-man]

K-man that is an interesting take. In my Russian history class, the professor said that the Russian peasants during the time of the Tzar Nicholas never blamed him for the horrible things the government did to them...they always believed that he just didn't know what was going on, and if he did, he would fix the problem...it was the Tzar's advisors who were the problem...not the Tzar...

That may well be the case. I believe there was a story about that .. something about an emperor and his new clothes or a lack thereof. Now, in the case of Tsar Nicholas (I assume it is Nic II), he was very inexperienced and ignored his advisors. Because the system was autocratic he was able to do what he chose and Russia's entry into WW I, again against his ministers advice, was the beginning of the end for him. That led to massive economic failure and his ultimate overthrow.

The comparison of Russia in the early 1900s with the US in the early 2000s is indeed an interesting one. Are you suggesting that Obama is an autocrat? Are you suggesting that the American people have no say in their government? I mean, I thought that you guys recently had an election.

But, I digress. I wouldn't trust the CIA to be honest with anyone, including the President.

An interesting timeline ....

In a speech before the CIA celebrating its 50th anniversary, President Clinton said: "By necessity, the American people will never know the full story of your courage."


Clinton’s is a common defense of the CIA: namely, the American people should stop criticizing the CIA because they don’t know what it really does. This, of course, is the heart of the problem in the first place. An agency that is above criticism is also above moral behavior and reform. Its secrecy and lack of accountability allows its corruption to grow unchecked.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html

If the US Presidents were complicit in these events it doesn't say much for the integrity of those Presidents, their advisers or indeed the people who elected them.

Which brings me back to the original question. Does the President really know, in advance, of all the CIA drone attacks? If you say yes, then is he aware of all the details? If again you say yes he studies every single bit of evidence, then is the evidence accurate or could it be used to manipulate? Just how far can you trust the CIA?

Drone strikes have many things going for them, but drone strikes that kill indiscriminately cause far more problems than they solve. :asian: