Advertisement

Discussions

Reader comments

On Opinion: Justification for drone warfare is clear

Comments

notajayhawk 1 year, 1 month ago

"The soldiers that his Union Army confronted at Antietam were American citizens (in rebellion) — killed without due process. "

Was Awlaki shooting at the drone?

It's not quite so clear cut, Mr. Krauthammer. When an armed force of uniformed men are shooting at you, they pretty much by definition ARE "enemy combatants". Determination by an intelligence agency (who, after all, never get things wrong - just like weather forecasters) that a person is "affiliated" with a terrorist organization is a far cry from such black-and-white evidence.

0

ThePilgrim 1 year, 1 month ago

Everyone should be demanding that Obama give back his Nobel Peace Prize. Period.

1

Liberty275 1 year, 1 month ago

"Answer: Once you take up arms against the United States, you become an enemy combatant, thereby forfeiting the privileges of citizenship and the protections of the Constitution, including due process. "

That isn't true. The American kid taken in Afghanistan fighting for the Taliban was afforded his constitutional rights, as was McVeigh.

Nowhere have I seen in the constitution that The Nation can punish any citizen without due process. As for what Lincoln thought, that doesn't matter. During the war he had no control of the south and could not make the decision if they were American or not. That would be like me calling Bozo a republican. I can say it but it isn't my decision to make.

Drone program - good. Killing Americans without due process - unconstitutional. Get it right Krauthammer.

0

msezdsit 1 year, 1 month ago

"One question is whether or not these attacks are "justified", meaning that the actions of those targeted merit them."

Whether the actions of those targeted merit drone attacks does not automatically justify the merits of the drone attacks. What exactly merits considerable innocent civilian deaths? It seems that most of those in favor of drone attacks think they merit civilian casualties so long as they aren't the ones dying. Its ok, it was someone else that died.

0

jafs 1 year, 1 month ago

Seems to me that people are arguing two different questions without being clear about that.

One question is whether or not these attacks are "justified", meaning that the actions of those targeted merit them.

The other is whether or not they're a good idea for any number of other reasons.

I'd say one can believe both that they're justified by the nature of the conflict we're in, and at the same time, that they may not be the best idea for those other reasons. Personally, I have a lot of trouble with civilian casualties, and would love it if we could find a way not to cause those.

1

thuja 1 year, 2 months ago

This kind of disagreement and conflict has followed humanity from the outset.

The real question is how big and sophisticated our weapons need to get to keep fighting the same old fight.

0

Alyosha 1 year, 2 months ago

Wow — who would've known that Krauthammer is also an international / war powers expert, along with being a political predictor (Romney by a landslide, recall)!

Surely he has all the same classified intelligence and information at hand that the Justice Department has access to. Of course Krauthammer would never make claims absent any real evidence or absent any good faith assumption that Justice department has sound reasons for its pronouncements.

Surely Krauthammer would never enter into a discussion absent all the facts.

1

msezdsit 1 year, 2 months ago

"Blowback" Blowback is unintended consequences of a covert operation that are suffered by the civil population of the aggressor government. To the civilians suffering the blowback of covert operations, the effect typically manifests itself as “random” acts of political violence without a discernible, direct cause; because the public—in whose name the intelligence agency acted—are ignorant of the effected secret attacks that provoked revenge (counter-attack) against them.[1] wikipedia

All the rhetoric and chest beating going on by posters on this subject does nothing to protect them from the blowback that these drone attacks will cause. When we suffer the blowback, then the chest beaters will call for more attacks in retaliation and the cycle will continue and continue to escalate. One thing you can count on is that more people will die.

2

WristTwister 1 year, 2 months ago

Finally, the Obama administration got something right! However, one has to marvel at the hypocrisy (incompetence?) of this administration. Practicing drone warefare while condemning waterboarding is a hoot.

3

Armstrong 1 year, 2 months ago

This is probably the only subject inwhich I whole heartedly support Barry. Anyone who actively takes up arms against the US/ joins our enemies should be targeted for elimination.

2

Paul R Getto 1 year, 2 months ago

We fight people who send teenagers into stores to blow up babies and people are debating "war ethics?" Kill 'em. They made their choice to join America's enemies.

3

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 2 months ago

'Let Us Not Be Deceived': Cornel West Names Obama as 'War Criminal' Like Nixon, Bush, and others the law is suspended for the president, but "applies for the rest of us"

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/02/15-4

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 2 months ago

Krauthammer is a neocon warmonger. He believes any violence conducted by "his" team is justified by definition.

2

50YearResident 1 year, 2 months ago

I agree with this statement 100%.

Answer: Once you take up arms against the United States, you become an enemy combatant, thereby forfeiting the privileges of citizenship and the protections of the Constitution, including due process. You retain only the protection of the laws of war — no more and no less than those of your foreign comrades-in-arms

4

Commenting has been disabled for this item.