Rep Dennis Kucinich stands up and talks about Drones strikes in Congress

Be like Nutella

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_UFggJCO-o

Opening Remarks
Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich

http://kucinich.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2012.11.14_dk_stmnt_drones_briefing.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Kucinich

“An Examination of the United States’ Drone Policy

Friday, November 16, 2012

I'll just list main points he made (word for word quotes)

• ..Drone strikes are occurring far from any internationally recognized battlefield.

• ..There is increasing evidence that such strikes cause significant harm to civilian populations and serve as a powerful recruitment tool for terrorists.

• ..Congress has been denied the right to read the legal framework used by the Administration to justify the drone strikes.

• ..Strikes are being carried out with virtually no transparency, accountability or judicial review. Victims or targets of the strikes are denied the right to due process. Innocent civilians and American citizens are getting the death penalty without so much as a trial.

• ..We must reject the notion that Congress and the American people have to be kept in the dark on U.S. counter-terrorism strategies.

• ..Simply put, drones must be subject to the same scrutiny and laws that other weapons the United States employs.

• ..This is the new war. It is defined less by geography, than technology. This change in definition allows the President – Democrat or Republican – to concentrate the power of declaring war into his or her hands.

• ..This change in war governance also allows the President to bypass the now out of date legal and constitutional infrastructure that was constructed to ensure war is a last resort, not a first resort.

“we see what is happening here and we won’t stand for it.”



Personally I think Kucinich is a legend for speaking up. I am obviously against the drone strike program. The media has been too quiet about this for too long and the presidential campaign didn't go near it and we know why that is... because Romney clearly couldn't say jack sh1t about it and that's the secret behind the media veil on this issue - because we just came from a period of large scale intensive pre-emptive US military policy run by the Bush team of Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld and the country is so war weary, Obama HAD to manage to be seen to 'do something' against the 'terror' out there BUT keep it small scale and keep US guys outa harms way. The Drone strikes offered him the perfect easy option. So he took it with both hands and expanded it dramatically and between himself and his exec team and a few guys in Justice and the CIA and the DOD (through JSOC) they managed to produce on the sly, a framework where they could do what the fuk they wanted how they wanted when they wanted where they wanted and without anybody even being ABLE TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS!!! Pure power concentration, side stepping congress and their own constitution! I recommend watching Kucinich speak and realize the ramifications of what he is saying and why he is so motivated on this topic. At least read, watch or listen to something before making ignorant comments and remember that just because it's been going on for nearly a decade and that you're 'USED' to hearing about drones and killing 'terrorists' doesn't mean that it's right, moral or effectively winning their so called endless barrier-less lawless unrealistic 'War on Terror'.


and no I don't have a better idea... before anybody asks me!.. that doesn't mean what they're doing is right!

Be like Nutella

" Though the United States has conducted more than 400 targeted killings in nonbattlefield settings in the past 10 years, it has refused to provide even the minimal amount of information to determine whether they could be justified. "

Micah Zenko CFR


http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/11/14/how-can-targeted-killings-be-justified/targeted-killings-demand-transparency-and-accountability

Manach

I would tentatively agree with the OP. Outside the area of Military operations, and especially in countries which are not part of the conflict the use of drones is legally suspect. The defence raised by the US of relying on customary rules of war for self-defence and hot pursuit of combatants cannot stand against the conventions that are part of standard Human Rights law, one of the basics of which is a proportate reponse - which drone strikes are not. I am not a supporter of Obama. However he has inherited a military complex that embraces a rather hazy view of national borders in pursuit of US security goals, with historical examples being Nixon's secret bombings of non-combatant Cambodia.

Be like Nutella

Dis-proportionality... CHECK. And rather well put whether you agree in part or not.


IS Pakistan a corrupt failing state with all kinds of mixed messages and which contains a literally lawless area which may or may not be considered a quasi battlefield whether declared or not? Yes I think it may be... and it's even more complex than that.

Is the whole fukin world a battlefield?... ahem... no it is not... whether 3000 people died on 9/11 or not.

Does the US really give a flying fuk about international law recently? lets be quite honest - no they don't hahaha they don't even THINK that they SHOULD... coz ya know... 9/11 n all...ahem... seems to be their crutch for bleeding everything.

What the hell is a militant? can anyone tell me? for 10 points
IS a Militant
a) a person on which you have good intel that is an imminent threat to the United States?
b) whoever the fuk just got smoked by that Hellfire I released from my console in Creech AFB Hooah?
or
c) Absolutely any male casualty blown to pieces in a predator strike who is 15 years old or more?

anyone?

Some questions:
Who orders drone strikes?
Who owns the drones themselves?
Who operates the drones?
from where?
Has anyone made a booboo and like totally killed the face outa entire families n **** by like accident since the strikes began in July 2004?
Does anyone even know?
How the hell does anyone know whether a drone strike was open brackets ' successful ' or not?
What exactly were the imminent threats to US national security in every carefully vetted drone strike since July 2004?
Who have they killed?
Who do they even THINK that they killed?
How do they know?
What is considered good enough Intel to assassinate people with drones... even hypothetically?
What's that? you can't, don't want to tell us?
Should that be considered acceptable?