Tags
Bush Versus Obama's Drone Policy, Drone kills 16 year old American, Holding Obama accountable, Hundreds of children killed by drones, Innocent American killed by drone strike, Is Obama a Terrorist, Obama murders children, Rand Paul defends liberty
In a quintessential in your face moment Senator Rand Paul, as this is being written, is standing on the Senate Floor filibustering against the Obama Policy of virtually unlimited drone strikes. An event that was triggered when Attorney General Eric Holder would not rule out use of the controversial practice here in the United States.
This site pointed out that this was a distinct possibility in an earlier post. The overly broad policy directive the administration was using to justify its actions had few limits. In the end Holders refusal to rule out such actions was just confirmation of what any reasonable interpretation of the President’s policy would of come up with. That being if the President declares you a imminent threat, even if no evidence supports such a declaration, he has the right to assassinate you at his leisure.
For many Americans the fact President Obama is killing people with drones is no different than what President Bush did. They have yet to wake up to the realization that President Obama’s drone attacks are fundamentally different. Bush used drones only against high level targets who were known threats to U.S. citizens and interests abroad. Furthermore President Bush’s drone strikes were done as to minimize civilian casualties. Neither of these are true under President Obama.
The President’s drone strikes have been mostly against low level targets with little attention given to the amount of evidence supporting their being declared such. There has also been no attempt by this administration to avert civilian casualties. Men dining in coffee shops or driving down a crowded street have been targeted with large numbers of innocent men, women and children injured and killed as well. If this was not bad enough not all of those targeted were even members of a terrorist group. In fact one of the American’s killed by this mad policy was an innocent 16 year old boy, targeted and killed in a public coffee shop for no other reason than his partially estranged father was an Al Qaeda leader (read more here). If there is one unanswered question in all of this it is this: Where are the war crimes protestors that so plagued President Bush? He never had such a misguided policy as this.
This is not the American Way. This is not how American’s act. This is no way to defend freedom. One does not spread freedom through acts of terror, and make no mistake, killing merely suspected low level terrorist operatives in crowded streets is terrorism. Hundreds of innocents have been killed including many, many children. While innocents are lost in the course of war there is little excuse for blatant disregard for their lives, especially for what is often little or no strategic gain.
As if this was not bad enough, now even American’s in the U.S. are at risk. This is because this administration believes that assassination of American citizens on American soil is not beyond their power. These are the same people that have called returning veterans, gun enthusiast and even Tea Party members potential terrorists. The President’s administration is one that not only detests limits it does not believe it has them.
At this point it is not known how this will work out but God bless Rand Paul for taking a stand. For forcing the Attorney General into admitting he sees no real limits on forgoing the Rule of Law in the name of security. The American people may not realize yet what is being done in their name or how far this group is willing to go with this policy but hopefully they soon will.
“The Conservative Mind”
If you like this Pass this on
The problem with laws and legislation like this; specifically legislation like the Patriot Act is that they give power to the government of which the consequences and implications for the future can’t be fully realized.
Whether Bush intended for drones to be used this way or not is ultimately irrelevant. Obama is using them in a disturbing fashion and future president may either continue this or make it even worse.
The bottom line is that we should never have opened this door in the first place. We can’t foresee what kind of possible abuses can essentially be made legal. This can’t be a partyline issue like it has become. Either it’s a bad or idea or its not.
The Patriot Act was an act born of fear and paranoia. The fact much of what was what was needed to prevent another 9/11 was accomplished by the terrorist. No longer would cooperation be seen as the best way of surviving a hijacking. Never again would obvious evidence be overlooked. The Patriot Act was superfluous to what the terrorist had already done and ultimately more dangerous in the long run.
The drones on the other hand have a purpose. They can be used to reduce casualties of innocent bystanders by enabling a timed attack at the most opportune time. Even killing grand organizers of deadly attacks if they can be gotten no other way is morally justifiable. The overriding goal has to be to prevent the loss of innocent lives, whether they be American or not.
In the end it is not the guns, the missiles or even the drones that are the problem but the principles of those who control them. The army and its soldiers have rules of engagement that do a good job of describing what is and is not acceptable. The drone program as it is, is run outside the rules of civilized warfare. It is not run by generals accountable to some code but by one man who makes up his own rules. To the extent that Bush left this door open he is accountable but than again, to the extent people close their eyes to the abuses so are they.