• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why hasn't Obama's 'KIll List' been an issue in debates?

Andalublue

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,101
Reaction score
12,359
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I read this earlier today and was frankly shocked. Not shocked at the existence of this kill list, although it passed me by when the NYT article came out (how's that happen?) but shocked that Romney hasn't made it a campaign issue. Is that because he's in favour of it? That he'd keep one too? A list of people designated for assassination without any due process, some of them American citizens and most of them nowhere near a war zone?

Read the article and tell me why you believe no one's making this a campaign issue.
The remarkable, unfathomable ignorance of Debbie Wasserman Schultz | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
 
AWhy no one has made an issue about it is because it is a part of war and national security. If you remember they used a deck of cards to soften the image of GWB's kill list when he first started going after the terrorists. It is a perfectly legitimate part of strategy used when you are combatting an organization. Though it is not a "kill" list police use lists of high ranking gang leaders and drugdealers as prime targets for their investigation. Of course Romney would have a list like this if he were president. If he did not have a list of high ranking commanders in a war that would be extremely benficial to eliminate I would consider him a complete failure as commander in chief.

So in other words as long as their is a war and enemies to the US there will be lists of people who are strategically important and prime targets of the military. Stop trying to make an issue out of nothing. this is a fact of a world where you have countries and organizations in conflict. Any reporter or individual who doesn't get this or wants to politicize this sort of thing is way off base and their world view is completely fantasy based. If you want to argue for pacifism then do that, but don't be surprised when few people in this world follow you onto the good ship lollipop that completely ignores all the violent crazies out there.
 
Andalublue said:
I read this earlier today and was frankly shocked. Not shocked at the existence of this kill list, although it passed me by when the NYT article came out (how's that happen?) but shocked that Romney hasn't made it a campaign issue. Is that because he's in favour of it? That he'd keep one too? A list of people designated for assassination without any due process, some of them American citizens and most of them nowhere near a war zone?

Read the article and tell me why you believe no one's making this a campaign issue.
The remarkable, unfathomable ignorance of Debbie Wasserman Schultz | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
Click to expand...

Because... its a GOP idea.

Bush started it... and Romney would most likely have one as well if he gets elected.
 
tererun said:
AWhy no one has made an issue about it is because it is a part of war and national security. If you remember they used a deck of cards to soften the image of GWB's kill list when he first started going after the terrorists. It is a perfectly legitimate part of strategy used when you are combatting an organization. Though it is not a "kill" list police use lists of high ranking gang leaders and drugdealers as prime targets for their investigation. Of course Romney would have a list like this if he were president. If he did not have a list of high ranking commanders in a war that would be extremely benficial to eliminate I would consider him a complete failure as commander in chief.

So in other words as long as their is a war and enemies to the US there will be lists of people who are strategically important and prime targets of the military. Stop trying to make an issue out of nothing. this is a fact of a world where you have countries and organizations in conflict. Any reporter or individual who doesn't get this or wants to politicize this sort of thing is way off base and their world view is completely fantasy based. If you want to argue for pacifism then do that, but don't be surprised when few people in this world follow you onto the good ship lollipop that completely ignores all the violent crazies out there.
Click to expand...

Well, if I were the Reps I wouldn't be hitting him for having a kill list, but for the disconnect between his purported liberal values and his behaviour in office. Abandoning due process in judging anyone, especially his own citizens, is a seriously hypocritical position for someone of his background.

This NYT article would provide me, if I were a GOP strategist, with many debate points.
 
there's nothing wrong with a kill list.... until you start putting American citizens on it.
 
tererun said:
AWhy no one has made an issue about it is because it is a part of war and national security. If you remember they used a deck of cards to soften the image of GWB's kill list when he first started going after the terrorists. It is a perfectly legitimate part of strategy used when you are combatting an organization. Though it is not a "kill" list police use lists of high ranking gang leaders and drugdealers as prime targets for their investigation. Of course Romney would have a list like this if he were president. If he did not have a list of high ranking commanders in a war that would be extremely benficial to eliminate I would consider him a complete failure as commander in chief.
Click to expand...

The deck of cards was so soldiers and Marines could possibly use them to identify the people with.
 
Thrilla said:
there's nothing wrong with a kill list.... until you start putting American citizens on it.
Click to expand...

Oh I get it... only certain people are protected by the rights which make all men equal. Due process not being one of those rights.
 
PeteEU said:
Because... its a GOP idea.

Bush started it... and Romney would most likely have one as well if he gets elected.
Click to expand...

No, he didn't. Where do you get these ideas? The world wasn't created during the Bush presidency (though that may be when you first noticed it's existence). I think every POTUS since Lincoln has had a kill list.

Well, maybe not Nixon, he was a quaker.
 
Last edited:
the kill list is the objective of the war on terrorist groups he has been prosecuting.

That american who was on the list, denounced their citizenship and PERSONALLY declared war on america. Since he was flagrant in his membership of a terrorist organization, that there was solid intell of his activities and involvement in terror attacks, often confessed to on ranting anti american anti west recruitment videos, and given that he was not likely to be extradited from yemen, Obama determined that this traitor was to be targetted.

It was the right choice, it had the right outcome. And no rational legal process and judgement would condemn him for doing it.
 
clownboy said:
No, he didn't. Where do you get these ideas? The world wasn't created during the Bush presidency (though that may be when you first noticed it's existence). I think every POTUS since Lincoln has had a kill list.

Well, maybe not Nixon, he was a quaker.
Click to expand...

nah, he left it to kissinger and laird.
 
clownboy said:
No, he didn't. Where do you get these ideas? The world wasn't created during the Bush presidency (though that may be when you first noticed it's existence). I think every POTUS since Lincoln has had a kill list.

Well, maybe not Nixon, he was a quaker.
Click to expand...

Nixon had a kill list.. was mostly of Democrats and black people but hey! :)
 
Hatuey said:
Oh I get it... only certain people are protected by the rights which make all men equal. Due process not being one of those rights.
Click to expand...

Please don't pretend it has always been that way. And when due process is not able to be carried out against a self confessed terrorist traitor who renounced his citizenship, it is one of those singular instances where the perp voluntarily gave up his right.

The notion that all people (non=citizens) are covered under the constitution of the united states is academically correct, but in realpolitik completely ignored when politically convenient or expedient.
 
Andalublue said:
Well, if I were the Reps I wouldn't be hitting him for having a kill list, but for the disconnect between his purported liberal values and his behaviour in office. Abandoning due process in judging anyone, especially his own citizens, is a seriously hypocritical position for someone of his background.

This NYT article would provide me, if I were a GOP strategist, with many debate points.
Click to expand...

I think polling has indicated that the majority of democrats and liberals actually support these programs. Though if I had to guess, much of that is likely based on who is running the program.
 
Andalublue said:
I read this earlier today and was frankly shocked. Not shocked at the existence of this kill list, although it passed me by when the NYT article came out (how's that happen?) but shocked that Romney hasn't made it a campaign issue. Is that because he's in favour of it? That he'd keep one too? A list of people designated for assassination without any due process, some of them American citizens and most of them nowhere near a war zone?

Read the article and tell me why you believe no one's making this a campaign issue.
The remarkable, unfathomable ignorance of Debbie Wasserman Schultz | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
Click to expand...

Because the names on that list are mutual enemies and need to die.
 
The sharpest edges of President Obama’s counterterrorism policy, including the use of drone aircraft to kill suspected terrorists abroad and keeping open the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, have broad public support, including from the left wing of the Democratic Party.

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that Obama, who campaigned on a pledge to close the brig in Cuba and to change national security policies he criticized as inconsistent with U.S. law and values, has little to fear politically for failing to live up to all of those promises.
Click to expand...

Poll finds broad support for Obama’s counterterrorism policies - The Washington Post


And get this: Depressingly, Democrats approve of the drone strikes on American citizens by 58-33, and even liberals approve of them, 55-35. Those numbers were provided to me by the Post polling team.

It’s hard to imagine that Dems and liberals would approve of such policies in quite these numbers if they had been authored by George W. Bush.
Click to expand...

Liberals, Dems approve of drone strikes on American citizens abroad - The Plum Line - The Washington Post
 
Jonsa said:
And no rational legal process and judgement would condemn him for doing it.
Click to expand...

Well, you're half right. No rational legal judgement did condemn him, or the terrorist suspect, of anything.
 
Andalublue said:
Well, you're half right. No rational legal judgement did condemn him, or the terrorist suspect, of anything.
Click to expand...

The terrorist wasn't a suspect, he was self confessed and damn proud of it. He was out of the judicial systems reach. He essentially asked for it and he got it.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
I think polling has indicated that the majority of democrats and liberals actually support these programs. Though if I had to guess, much of that is likely based on who is running the program.
Click to expand...

Jonsa said:
The terrorist wasn't a suspect, he was self confessed and damn proud of it. He was out of the judicial systems reach. He essentially asked for it and he got it.
Click to expand...

Believe me, I'm shedding no tears for al-Aulaqi; I'm pleased he's dead. I'm concerned that extra-judicial killings seem to be so much a feature of the western 'benevolent hegemony', especially given that for every legitimate target eliminated by such hits, there is so much 'collateral damage' i.e innocent victims, many of them children.

This really demonstrates that on one really big, Nation-defining issue it really does make no difference who you vote for next month. And yet still Reps attack Obama for being a Muslim sympathiser. Odd.

Also odd is the fact that if this list is so well-known, and so fully approved of by Dems, why should Debbie Wasserman Schulz have denied all knowledge of it?
 
Last edited:
Andalublue said:
Believe me, I'm shedding no tears for al-Aulaqi; I'm pleased he's dead. I'm concerned that extra-judicial killings seem to be so much a feature of the western 'benevolent hegemony', especially given that for every legitimate target eliminated by such hits, there is so much 'collateral damage' i.e innocent victims, many of them children.
Click to expand...

Now i'm confused. You don't have a problem with killing the people on the list? You only have a problem with accidentally killing other people who are not on the list?
 
Because most republicans dont have a problem with it and most democrats only care about stuff like that when it is a republican president. As an argument, it would gain no traction...same with the expanded use of black ops prisons, reversing decisions on civilian trials of terrorists and granting them constitutional rights, expanding the patriot acts powers, etc.
 
Andalublue said:
Well, if I were the Reps I wouldn't be hitting him for having a kill list, but for the disconnect between his purported liberal values and his behaviour in office. Abandoning due process in judging anyone, especially his own citizens, is a seriously hypocritical position for someone of his background.

This NYT article would provide me, if I were a GOP strategist, with many debate points.
Click to expand...

Obama never claimed to be a pacifist as you imply, and as the commander of an army in a war it is only right he keeps track of prime targets of the enemy even if he is planning on winding down and ending the wars. your idea that somehow he went against his claims is absulute bull and a complete fabrication. He came into the position as a president in war and handled it the way any president would, and the way any president in his position would have been expected to. Any pacifist idiot who thinks he was not going to handle US obligations set forth by the previous administration and turn this into some ill prepared country is living in the same fantasy land you seem to be.

Go get a real point.
 
Fisher said:
The deck of cards was so soldiers and Marines could possibly use them to identify the people with.
Click to expand...

the deck of cards was a pictoral list of the prime targets in the war. it is the same as a kill list for the troops. if you see this guy kill him, or if you see him dead report it. it was made into a deck of cards to soften it's appearance as a list of prime targets. Please, stop playing stupid word games. We know that every president and world military leader keeps a strategic list of targets or threats. Yes bush had one, and yes every leader has one and every realistic person expects their leaders to have one. Please stop making the implication that somehow this is different for Obama than it was for bush. That is just an attempt to misrepresent reality. If you say there are reasons to dislike obama than go find them, don't make up **** because you can't find a real reason.
 
If Romney offered an alternative policy, it would actually be an important discussion. Despite all the manufactured outrage, Romney and Obama get on fine on plenty of issues, many of which unfortunately are terrible for the American people. All I can is condemn Obama, I can actually vote for a better solution.

The problem with the current policy is that drone strikes can be ordered in secret with no trial, due process or oversight. The President could kill a completely innocent American citizen and there would be no recourse or accountability. There absolutely needs to be a legal process with checks and balances for something as serious as ordering the death of an American citizen, its right there in the 5th amendment.
 
tererun said:
AWhy no one has made an issue about it is because it is a part of war and national security. If you remember they used a deck of cards to soften the image of GWB's kill list when he first started going after the terrorists. It is a perfectly legitimate part of strategy used when you are combatting an organization. Though it is not a "kill" list police use lists of high ranking gang leaders and drugdealers as prime targets for their investigation. Of course Romney would have a list like this if he were president. If he did not have a list of high ranking commanders in a war that would be extremely benficial to eliminate I would consider him a complete failure as commander in chief.

So in other words as long as their is a war and enemies to the US there will be lists of people who are strategically important and prime targets of the military. Stop trying to make an issue out of nothing. this is a fact of a world where you have countries and organizations in conflict. Any reporter or individual who doesn't get this or wants to politicize this sort of thing is way off base and their world view is completely fantasy based. If you want to argue for pacifism then do that, but don't be surprised when few people in this world follow you onto the good ship lollipop that completely ignores all the violent crazies out there.
Click to expand...

No one has made an issue out of this because the lame press would not want to do anything to discredit the "chosen one." It was a crime worthy of impeachment for the US to "torture" Al Qada prisoners at Gitmo in order to get valuable information on potential terror attacks against the US during the Bush Administration. But, its no problem for the lame press if we pick off presumed terrorists from 10000 feet while risking collateral damage. Perhaps if Bush just let the terrorists make a run for it from behind the wires of Gitmo he could have popped them with a drone. He wouldn't have even had to give them their Miranda rights. No...pretty sure the NYT and MSNBC would have objected to that.

I don't think Romney would want to bring this up at a debate for fear he would be tag teamed by Obama and the moderator...but that's for another thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom