Hypocritical Outrage About The "Drone Memo"

The Washington political corridors are all abuzz in light of the newly discovered document that lays out the supposed legal reasoning behind the CIA's Drone program, with which they carry out drone missile strikes in various countries around the world against terror suspects, even if, like in the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, said target is an American citizen.

the new document was uncovered by NBC's Michael Isikoff, and i will quote one piece of his reporting on the document:

A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be "senior operational leaders" of al-Qaida or "an associated force"—even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S. ...

[T]he confidential memo lays out a three-part test that would make targeted killings of American lawful: In addition to the suspect being an imminent threat, capture of the target must be "infeasible," and the strike must be conducted according to "law of war principles." ... For example, it states that U.S. officials may consider whether an attempted capture of a suspect  would pose an "undue risk" to U.S. personnel involved in such an operation. If so, U.S. officials could determine that the capture operation of the targeted American would not be feasible, making it lawful for the U.S. government to order a killing instead, the memo concludes.

well, let me first make clear that i do not condone nor support any action that the government takes if it is not in compliance with the U.S. constitution. as an obama supporter, i wish he wouldve come out and layed it all on the table- his legal reasoning behind killing americans without the right to a trial in court etc.

where i do have a problem is with the "outrage" and "disbelief" that some in the republican party on capitol hill and in the conservative media. one of the talking heads that struck me in particular is the host of MSNBC's "Morning Joe" Joe Scarborough.

while i sometimes disagree with Joe's statements and his stand on some of the more important issues, i love his show and i watch every morning. this morning he was talking about, if nothing else, the "drone memo". "It's hard to say how many stop signs were blown through here," Scarborough said.

"But for those who were shocked at the Bush administration 'torture memos,' they must be really stunned at this." He called the drone memo "child's play" compared to the so-called "torture memos."
Calling it an "absolute mess" and so frightening, Scarborough said that "if George Bush had done this, it would have been stopped."

this is where i have a problem with the conservative argument against the obama drone strikes. when the american people first learned about the torture memos, did the bush administration stop it immidiatly? or did they at first try to justify it by not calling it torture and then they were defending it as the most useful tool against hardened terror detainees? 

 as i said, i wish the obama administration would come forward and explain exactly the workings of the drone strikes and the legal justification, but at the same time no one should be fooled by the so-called outrage on the right about the drone strikes, For they worked hard to justify the bush torture practice to the very, embarrassing end.

What the NRA Enemies List Tells Me

yesterday, the conversation started again about that infamous "enemy list" that the National Rifle Association holds. it is made out of people who, in the eyes of the NRA, are the biggest threat to their mission, which is to keep guns as available as possible, by pouring in millions of dollars in the pockets of the politicians who have the power to make stricter gun laws and regulations for gun sellers, gun owners and gun shows.

while the list is too long and too ridiculous to go into every name and organization they put on there, a few struck me as odd. well, not that i would expect anything about the NRA to make sense, let alone when we are talking about an old, tribal style "enemy list", some of the names they put on there, just goes against what they themselves are boasting in the last few week since the tragic shooting in newtown, Connecticut.

in the immidiate wake of the newtown shooting, everyone was looking at the NRA and what they will say about the wave of new calls for action to make stricter gun laws in the united states. when NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre finally came out at a "press conference" and started addressing the shooting and the buzz around a new campaign for gun laws, he stated plainly and simply that "guns are not the problem". he said, in a long and bizzare presentation that guns don't cause violence, and only Hollywood can fix the problem by making less violent movies and video games.

now let's say i accept the NRA version of reality and that the only thing that needs fixing is the movie industry, why is the "American Trauma Society" on their enemy list? if guns are not the cause of violence and trauma, why put this group on a list of people who pose a threat to your goal?

come to think of it, that Wayne LaPierre knows all too well that guns ARE the main cause of violence and trauma in our society, and all those nut-jobs declaring that "obama is out to get your guns and put you in a communist gulag", are just falling for a guy who laughs at them and takes their NRA membership money to finance his yacht and private plane...