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

Drone kills worth a look

February 13, 2013

Penning hardcore terrorists up at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba was a bad idea, President Barack Obama has said....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(109)

Scarecrow57

Feb-13-13 11:26 AM

First thing is does it matter if it is a manned aircraft, a drone, a Tomahawk missile, or a man (check that - person; must be PC) with a rifle?

The bigger question is should the President be able to order the assassination of anyone? In my opinion, this is answer is an indisputable NO!

How can he on one hand bemoan the killings by guns in America and then practice this same thing unchecked throughout the world. Hypocrisy at it's best. Obummer - King of the do as I say, not as I do syndrome.

6 Agrees | 13 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Skrocki

Feb-13-13 11:55 AM

This editorial is clearly a cheap shot at our President who as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces does have ultimate military authority. However, he does not act alone. Any killing of a human being is apalling. Vietnam,Iraq, Afganistan have taught us that is nearly impossible to distinguish combatant from civilian. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed over 200,000 civilians.

If drones can save lives by keeping our troops out of harms way, more power to them!

12 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rschweizer

Feb-13-13 12:36 PM

I don't see how drones can keep American troops out of harms way if that drone killed a civilian in a country where American troops aren't even deployed. And that is the reality. Perhaps the 'judge, jury, and executioner' is embellished a bit, but to say that this is a type of necessary evil.

And to say that 'Any killing of a human being is apalling' followed by a 'more power to them!' is a bit contradictory, the resutls of which are unthinkable.

7 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rschweizer

Feb-13-13 12:37 PM

forgot to finish that first paragraph:

...but to say that this is a type of necessary evil is a lie on the Administration's part.

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gville70

Feb-13-13 12:40 PM

Hey scarecrow where was your moral outrage in WW1 when the first UAV's were used?? LOL Perhaps you're ****** at Reagan for ordering a fleet of them in 1984??? Intresting fact those UAV's ordered under Reagan where the first modern missile carrying cool ones.. Every president since has used UAV strike capability, so stop the water works..Imagine how quiet this thread would be if it was Bush still in office?

9 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scarecrow57

Feb-13-13 1:01 PM

gville70 - It is obvious you went through the Gloversville School System. I don't have an issue with the use of Drones, UAVs, Tomahawk Missiles, or any of the rest.

My issue is with allowing a President to act like a mobster ordering hits on anyone he deems a threat. If you are not concerned by giving 1 person this much authority then you would truly fit in nicely in the USSR.

5 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scarecrow57

Feb-13-13 1:05 PM

rschweizer - The drones keep the troops out of harms way by allowing them to be flown from 1,000 miles away.

You do however bring up the issue of flying this things into other sovereign nations with the sole purpose of attacking people on that nations soil. In America we consider that to be an act of war. So by flying these drones into Pakistan without congressional approval the President has violated the War Powers Act of 1973; implemented after Democratic Presidents lead us into the Vietnam Fiasco. The purpose of this act was to prevent this from happening again. Yet here we are with a President thumbing his nose at the law.

6 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DaveGibson

Feb-13-13 1:40 PM

Terrorists shouldn't feel safe no matter where they are.

Osama bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan, and Navy Seals took him out. Was that not a good thing?

Drone attacks in Pakistan have been carried out since 2004. This is nothing new, although Obama has increased their use. Many US drone attacks have been launched from Shamsi Airfield in Pakistan.

Yet again, another ignorant editorial by that guy in the corporate office. The editorials written by our local office are much better.

11 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scarecrow57

Feb-13-13 2:32 PM

Dave, Remember the terror watch list that Obama had back in 2009 that included returning war veterans, members of the NRA, members of the ACLU, etc.

Please look past the partisan crap and think about what is really going on here. The President is sending in armed forces (including the drones) to other sovereign nations without congressional approval.

Do you really want a President who can put out the kill order on anyone? It woudl be very easy to classify anyone on this board as a "terrorist"

4 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

drugsrus

Feb-13-13 3:06 PM

Disco is right BUT the weaponry should not be available to the Executive branch of the gov't or any branch for that matter. The drones should only be used by the military as a tool for the safety of forces andultimate victory.

4 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DaveGibson

Feb-13-13 3:10 PM

Who is partisan, Scarecrow? Obama didn't have a terrorist watch list. The Department of Homeland Security did.

Did the president have congressional approval to send troops into Cambodia and Laos? Grenada? Panama? If Obama asked Congress for approval to take out bin Laden in Pakistan, don't you think it might have eliminated the element of surprise?

As for the sovereignty of other nations... if they harbor terrorists like bin Laden and other Al Qaeda terrorist leaders, they lose their right to sovereignty. I don't want to see another 9-11, do you?

11 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rschweizer

Feb-13-13 3:21 PM

'Remember the terror watch list that Obama had back in 2009 that included returning war veterans, members of the NRA, members of the ACLU, etc. '

I remember one of my grad school professors' toddler son being on the no-fly list back in 2003-04, which always made for good conversation.

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

drugsrus

Feb-13-13 3:27 PM

Davethe end of your post is right but the beginning is mere king Barry defending. He is wrong on this and lots of other issues

2 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

notgood

Feb-13-13 3:37 PM

If this was the Bush administration how do you think it would have been covered?

8 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

woodchuck

Feb-13-13 6:01 PM

if the drone could turn on its master..

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gville70

Feb-13-13 6:01 PM

scarecrow i didn't go to gville and was in the military unlike you.. Said policies have been in place for 30 plus years as the gov't admitted using them to track soviet movement in alaska...Matter of fact they use UAV's to moniter the southern border also..Obama (get it right pinko) is just following the procedures written years ago.. Stop with the right wing anti-american hysteria..

9 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Skrocki

Feb-13-13 6:06 PM

drugsrus must not realize the President as Commander in Chief is the highest office in the military chain of command.

9 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scarecrow57

Feb-13-13 6:13 PM

rschweizer

"I remember one of my grad school professors' toddler son being on the no-fly list back in 2003-04, which always made for good conversation. "

My point exactly.....The wrong people could easily be targeted.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

drugsrus

Feb-13-13 6:18 PM

Skrocki- yes he is the comander in chief, BUT much like most CEOs he doesn't need to check on the janitors every day. The layers of the chain of command should insulate him from the day to day operations. But king Barry is a control freak anyway and you probably feel the same as Chris Rock - "He is our boss and Barry and Michelle are like our mom and dad...." NOT

2 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rschweizer

Feb-13-13 6:34 PM

drugsrus, if he allegedly has this layer you speak of and doesn't need to have to check on everything because he has delegated those to powers to people like most corporations do (since you want to be realistic by comparing the federal government and all its heirarchy with that of a corporation), then why on earth does he get the blame for every little thing that happens?

Obama this, Obama that, it's getting quite old pretty fast. You're so fast to blame Obama for every little thing that happens in your life all the while ignoring your own dictum about delegating certain authority to people like every present before him and after him?

11 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rschweizer

Feb-13-13 6:36 PM

woodchuck, I'm glad you didn't finish that statement. I would have been more than happy to report you to the police for making a threat against the president.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hilltopper

Feb-13-13 7:10 PM

DRUGGY..... "The layers of the chain of command should insulate him from the day to day operations." Isn't that what we have been saying about Benghazi?

11 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

drugsrus

Feb-13-13 10:17 PM

"topper- that was different. That was a situation he should have been on top of, or Hilary should have handled it better. This drone thing is more like telling tank commanders which direction to shoot when he has no clue of thier position or exactly where the target is.

1 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rschweizer

Feb-13-13 10:26 PM

Druggy- EXACTLY! When something goes your way, sure no problem. Once it doesn't, it sudden;y becomes a case of 'well... that was different... you see, what they should have done was...'

7 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TiredOfTax

Feb-13-13 10:42 PM

It was in the testimony that Obama was briefed on the Benghazi embassy attack, but he never followed up at all for the entire night. Hillary was unavailable and could not be contacted throughout the entire event. So who was in charge? What was Hillary's job? No matter how you see this it was not what the President sent Susan Rice to tell. Do you still believe that it was all about a film that they had no control over? Have another KOOL-AID!

3 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 109 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