41 ms·

‘So you’re alright with’? What do you think that has to do with anything? No one really asked if anyone was okay with Obama ‘droning’ random folks while callin

by lazide 1y ago

‘So you’re alright with’? What do you think that has to do with anything? No one really asked if anyone was okay with Obama ‘droning’ random folks while calling them terrorists either. Notably, using the same tools (social network analysis, etc) that are now apparently being aimed at domestic ‘terrorists’.

lesuorac 1y ago
People did complain about Obama's done strikes. Find articles from back then and you see the words "controversial" [1]. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/18/us-military-drones-obama-afghanistan-yemen-isis https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/18/us-military-dr...
- Integrape 1y ago
  People used to complain about Obama's drone strikes. They still do, but they used to, too.
- lazide 1y ago
  Yes. I said ‘did anyone ask’, aka did anyone doing them care. And the answer is no. There was a bigger fuss in the power structure about the time he wore a tan suit, than about drone strikes. That someone complains doesn’t mean if it matters. Plenty of people are complaining about what is going on now, also to zero effect. And for those saying the AUMF justified Obama - it clearly didn’t justify it in Libya (not affiliated), and Congress expressly did not authorize it against ISIS - but drones were still widely used. The biggest difference in these scenarios is if they were sold as ‘the right thing’, or as ragebait. There is plenty of precedent for presidents just droning/air striking countries with zero congressional approval - including Trump in his first term, Obama before that, etc. Hell, Trump himself bombed Iran just a few months ago, and folks barely blinked an eye. Zero congressional involvement.
vel0city 1y ago
I'm not a fan of Obama's legacy of drone strikes. They hurt a lot of civilians and I think probably did more harm to US interests overseas than they helped. However, most (if not all?) of the intended targets of Obama's drone strikes were targets with a pretty reasonable connection to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military force. So those drone strikes were likely "legal" and covered under what Congress enabled when it passed that law and has so far failed to repeal. Theoretically, these were all people Congress agreed we were essentially at war with. Congress can choose to repeal the AUMF at any time, and could have done so during Obama's term. I don't think there's any reasonable interpretation that random boats of the coast of Venezuela have any connection to 9/11 though, and thus there's pretty much no way to contort an argument that these actions are then somehow allowable. If Trump wants to go to war against Venezuela, he needs to get Congress to approve. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_of_2001 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milit...

by lazide 1y ago

lesuorac 1y ago

People did complain about Obama's done strikes. Find articles from back then and you see the words "controversial" [1]. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/18/us-military-drones-obama-afghanistan-yemen-isis https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/18/us-military-dr...

Integrape 1y ago
People used to complain about Obama's drone strikes. They still do, but they used to, too.
lazide 1y ago
Yes. I said ‘did anyone ask’, aka did anyone doing them care. And the answer is no. There was a bigger fuss in the power structure about the time he wore a tan suit, than about drone strikes. That someone complains doesn’t mean if it matters. Plenty of people are complaining about what is going on now, also to zero effect. And for those saying the AUMF justified Obama - it clearly didn’t justify it in Libya (not affiliated), and Congress expressly did not authorize it against ISIS - but drones were still widely used. The biggest difference in these scenarios is if they were sold as ‘the right thing’, or as ragebait. There is plenty of precedent for presidents just droning/air striking countries with zero congressional approval - including Trump in his first term, Obama before that, etc. Hell, Trump himself bombed Iran just a few months ago, and folks barely blinked an eye. Zero congressional involvement.

vel0city 1y ago

I'm not a fan of Obama's legacy of drone strikes. They hurt a lot of civilians and I think probably did more harm to US interests overseas than they helped. However, most (if not all?) of the intended targets of Obama's drone strikes were targets with a pretty reasonable connection to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military force. So those drone strikes were likely "legal" and covered under what Congress enabled when it passed that law and has so far failed to repeal. Theoretically, these were all people Congress agreed we were essentially at war with. Congress can choose to repeal the AUMF at any time, and could have done so during Obama's term. I don't think there's any reasonable interpretation that random boats of the coast of Venezuela have any connection to 9/11 though, and thus there's pretty much no way to contort an argument that these actions are then somehow allowable. If Trump wants to go to war against Venezuela, he needs to get Congress to approve. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_of_2001 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milit...