WEATHER »

More Bush than Bush


Saturday, February 23, 2013
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article

In the last few years there have been some unprecedented things occurring: suspects being killed at the sole discretion of the government, without due process. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? No more. NDAA in effect here and now. The right wingers who still somehow call Obama a liberal have no idea what NDAA is because if they did, they’d have to face the fact that Obama is more Bush than George Bush ever was.

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

If they can keep us fighting amongst themselves under the two party illusion, we can have more and even Bushier Bushes in the future.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 24, 2013 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Nonetheless, the Commander-in-Chief breaks the law when he directs the aerial assassination of an American citizen, even if he was Anwar al-awlaki.... What happened to the sanctity of "the rule of law"?

DrDan (anonymous profile)
February 24, 2013 at 1:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, Obama is more Bush than Bush on many things. Bush was no fiscal conservative either, that's for sure.

Botany (anonymous profile)
February 24, 2013 at 1:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

They share a more corporatist ideology than a Democratic or Republican one IMHO.

The article below:

"Developers and investors got rich on a project that destroyed the homes of thousands of Chicago's poorest black residents."

Doesn't sound unlike SB in some ways..

http://www.alternet.org/hard-times-us...

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 24, 2013 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Didn't know that SB has a large poor black population.

Didn't know that we had a lot of developers kicking people out either.

Botany (anonymous profile)
February 24, 2013 at 3:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"in some ways" Botany, he wrote, so no, of course SB doesn't have a large black population (less than 3%). The economics of our strange area make the "kicking out" you mention, Botany.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
February 24, 2013 at 3:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

But the "economics" you mention are true for almost any expensive town, that's not an issue exclusive to Santa Barbara.

Botany (anonymous profile)
February 24, 2013 at 3:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Back to what's happening: Our mainstream politicians support the Patriot Act and the NDAA and people reward them with more power each election cycle.

Whether you're poor, White, Black, gay, straight, or even a Methodist, you should be alarmed and doing something about this.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
February 24, 2013 at 3:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Please excuse my color blindness.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 24, 2013 at 5:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Right on Bill Clausen. Our prez is planner, judge, and executioner all in one. The administration's excuses barely qualify as legal. The number of innocent victims greatly outnumbers the supposed terrorists killed. So far almost 200 children have been murdered.

Drones are the next generation kiss of death used for many victims. (Zero US casualties is the rationale cited).The Veterans for Peace have a drone model on display at Arlington West at Stearn's Wharf on the first Sunday of each month. Check it out for more information on US drone attacks - your government is responsible for these attacks. And coming soon to a city near you, drones, sometimes as small as a mosquito, used for monitoring US citizens.

residentsb (anonymous profile)
February 24, 2013 at 6:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bush and Obama were/are both fiscally irresponsible.
Obama has spent more time with Wall Street insiders than Bush.
Bush let Cheney run amok.
How in the hell did we vote for either of these idiots?

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
February 24, 2013 at 7:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What a clueless post on Drones. If you are going to kill your enemy, drones are the safest way to go. Fewer casualties of your own, fewer civilian casualties.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_...

Of course, we could just choose not to kill anyone that plots against us, just like we did before 9/11.

Botany (anonymous profile)
February 24, 2013 at 8:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

But what about domestic use of drones Botany?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 24, 2013 at 9:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe you could explain, Botany, how safety became paramount over legality.

SezMe (anonymous profile)
February 25, 2013 at 1:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Domestic use of drones for surveillance purposes is fine.

As far as the "legality" of using drones, I don't believe it's the drone usage you are questioning. I think it's the legality of warfare itself, and the conditions that we engage in it. That's what you are questioning, right? Drones are just tools of warfare. So that question is really a separate issue.

Botany (anonymous profile)
February 25, 2013 at 5:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

your value-free comment slamming our amoral use of drones is like most of your comments, Botany, so I get it... morality and empire don't go together, eh? Like, you just figured this out? Read the Melian Dialogue in Thucydides' great history book. Please define "enemy".
And what about KV's question of using them for surveillance locally? Aren't you then all worried about the intrusive Nanny State?? Further, our capitalistic defense companies want to retail the Predator drone abroad, to the UAE, I believe... then when those guys will give the design to terrorists and THEY will practice your statement "If you are going to kill your enemy, drones are the safest way to go" — don't complain.
Please try to rethink your position, Botany.
Many of us do NOT think "drones are the safest way to go"! Longer term, they will end up being used against us. Maybe you're thinking like a landlord again, eh?

DrDan (anonymous profile)
February 25, 2013 at 5:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

But to answer your question, yeah I think it's legal. It was no less legal than sending troops into Afghanistan after 9/11, or to use Cruise missiles on al Qaeda after the bombing of the USS Cole. It's the same principle, just a different tool.

Botany (anonymous profile)
February 25, 2013 at 6 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As far as use in cities, many cities have red light cameras, aircraft to catch speeders. The DEA often uses helicopters to look for pot growers. How are drones any different? Again, you are deriding the tool and not the policy. We are currently performing surveillance the same way drones would be.

And you're right. Drones may end up being used against us someday. But us not using them won't keep others from doing so.

Botany (anonymous profile)
February 25, 2013 at 6:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I love drones.
I hate red light cameras.
Drones are not scary. They are merely really cool technology.
The Patriot Act scares the hell out of me.
The last two Presidents have shredded the Constitution.

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
February 25, 2013 at 6:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And no one ever knew, I was using a DRONE when I was flying my R/C Airplane over peoples houses as a kid but now its a big thing, I guess when you can place several missiles under the wings to take out undeserving American's and Foreigner's in the home Countries.
The American people have NO one to blame for our predicament but themselves! They vote with their emotions and NOT their brains (if they have any...). For the amount of money wasted in contributions to YES men/women to get elected to ruin the Country, we could've paid off our Debt twice fold but we try as we might to buy ourselves a Congress-person every election and those who don't when keep the money for themselves, cause that's their paycheck for playing the game.

dou4now (anonymous profile)
February 25, 2013 at 7:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Drones seem to me to be the opposite of nuclear weapons in that while the latter make the cost of war too great, drones used as assassination tools make dealing in death too easy.

That's not to say I approve of our having a nuclear stockpile. The chance of accident or misuse is far too great and we ought to be working harder toward a nuke-free world.

Permitting drones to be used for domestic snooping also makes it too likely that our right to privacy will be violated. As the Obama administration is showing us, even a supposedly liberal government finds ways to justify its bending of the Constitution. An even more frightened and ignorant populace than ours will almost certainly surrender more freedoms, especially under a more paranoid government.

jonkwilliams (anonymous profile)
February 25, 2013 at 8:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jonk is right in one sense. Surveillance is often difficult and expensive. Drones will make it easier, cheaper and more efficient. Does that change the policy? no. We still can and do perform surveillance using other methods.

The same with warfare. In Viet Nam, we often used carpet bombing as a weapon. Death was indiscriminate.

Drones make killing your enemy easier, cheaper, safer with fewer civilian casualties. Does that make the decision to do it easier and maybe more frequent? I would say probably. Again, the use of drones doesn't change the policy. The avaliabilty of more tools to accomplish the task may make the decision to take out your enemy easier though.

Botany (anonymous profile)
February 25, 2013 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

so because "In Viet Nam, we often used carpet bombing as a weapon" that legitimates its use 'cause "Death was indiscriminate" and thus Obama's current aerial assassinations without rule of law is OK, too.... Great logic, oh, I see, yeah, "it's war". When "they" use it on us, or our government does, then it will be OK and legal, too.
We will rue the day we sell this technology abroad. Honestly, Botany, your head is in the sand on this one.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
February 25, 2013 at 10:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow, so under Botany's logic it is legal because he says so and because we have performed similar illegal and immoral activities before..

What happened to "Bush's illegal wars"?? They were and are still illegal and unconstitutional, they were not declared by congress.

Drones are being used as tools for assassination, not tools of war.

Not only that, double tapping is routine, which is when they bomb a drone target several minutes after the first bombing, killing first responders, health workers and other innocent people arrive at the scene. Imagine you are 15 years old and your mother is a nurse and she just got blown up in a double tap after trying to help some innocent people who had their legs blown off? Your probably going to be one pissed off 15 year old. And congratulations, you are now going to be labelled a terrorist for taking a moral stand against an illegal occupation of your territory and targeted for assassination by the United States. And the cycle continues. Thanks to people like Botany.

I would not trust ANY U.S. Govt. official estimates for deaths from drone strikes, civilian casualties, etc.. Why? Because most drone strikes are done under classified intelligence operations and so by definition they are allowed to spew all the crap they want.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
February 25, 2013 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

More info on mindless rationalization re drones:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/...

residentsb (anonymous profile)
February 25, 2013 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just FYI loon, we haven't had a declared war since WW2. If drones are "illegal", then so is every military action we've engaged in since WW2. So what makes drones different? You tell me?

Are you saying that the carpet bombing in Viet Nam and nuking Hiroshima are "legal" because the killing was indiscriminate? Is it only because the killing is targeted towards specific individuals that makes it "illegal"? I still don't get your point.

Botany (anonymous profile)
February 25, 2013 at 5:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Without drones the Kardashians would have no fans.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 25, 2013 at 5:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Your many posts have shown you incapable of ever getting loonpt's point, Botany.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
February 25, 2013 at 6:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah, I know DD. I'm just a retard with an IQ below the level of superlative intellects like you and loon. I guess that's why only smart people are liberals.

Botany (anonymous profile)
February 25, 2013 at 7:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Now Botany, never say "retard" because the term is not politically correct, instead say "mentally challenged". I will forgive you this time, but next time you use that term, I will have you turned over to the State for re-education in a sensitivity training camp.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
February 26, 2013 at 2:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I remember back in the days of the Vietnam War--which as I recall, was a never officially declared war, when the nation was horrified at the news of the U.S. dropping napalm bombs on villages. How far has the U.S. foreign policy evolved since then?

billclausen (anonymous profile)
February 26, 2013 at 2:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Not only that, the days of trench warfare and chemical weapons like mustard gas have pretty much disappeared. Some seem to think that any action in which people get killed is "illegal". When in actuality, war the way the US wages it is more humane (if you can call any war that) than it's ever been. I think some of the people posting here have never read much history. The wars of the past were far more destructive with far more suffering and much higher civilian casualties.

That is unless one thinks that all war is "illegal" or only declared wars are legal. Then that is a different argument.

Botany (anonymous profile)
February 26, 2013 at 5:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Let me put it this way...

If we could have taken a drone back in time to WW2, if the people posting here think that FDR or Truman wouldn't have used it to take out Hitler because it was illegal or immoral, there really is no point in continuing this discussion any further.

Botany (anonymous profile)
February 26, 2013 at 6:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yea, it's the fault of a controllable, flying robot. Not our Chief Executive/Saviour that is killing U.S. citizens illegally.
I love drones when used legally under our Constitution.
I hate anyone that rules by executive order and misuses technology for their own un Constitutional purpose.
I hate Progressive hypocrites that decried "Bush Lied People Died" and yet are not out protesting a President that is ruling by fiat and breaking his promise to end the idiotic wars that were started by Bush.

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
February 26, 2013 at 6:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I've read quite a lot of history. The wars of the 20th century -- part of the recent past -- were horrendously destructive and, as Timothy Garton Ash has shown, especially murderous on the civilian populations (and not limited to the Holocaust). Botany, you might try Timothy Snyder's BLOODLANDS, which makes a similar point.
Botany, how can you write, "war the way the US wages it is more humane"? Are you referring to the planet earth??

DrDan (anonymous profile)
February 26, 2013 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No, compared to our enemies and compared to our own past.

And yes, "humane" is a relative term, because war is never humane.

Botany (anonymous profile)
February 26, 2013 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So everybody is good with the domestic noncivilian use of drones?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 26, 2013 at 1:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

no, obviously, I'm not with domestic non-civilian use of drones, and not even sure the cops should have much access...there was a hue and cry about the San Diego Police Dept. considering it. All you guys who hafta have your guns should be agin' this, more Nanny State surveillance, right?

DrDan (anonymous profile)
February 26, 2013 at 4:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think your both of your concerns are a little misplaced. Really, the focus should be on what should government be allowed to do and what they shouldn't.

Focusing just on the tools government uses takes away from the fact of whether they should be doing what they are doing or attempting to do. Technology will change and so will the tools government uses to accomplish tasks they want to accomplish. The focus should be on the task and not on the tool.

Botany (anonymous profile)
February 26, 2013 at 5:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How about we get the hell out of there and let THEM figure out how to run their lives and deal with the crime and poverty we have over here?

Don't forget it was George Washington who said "beware of foreign entanglement" lest I be labled some anti-American selt-loather.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
February 26, 2013 at 8:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)