Fuck Lindsay Graham.
“We don't have any troops in that area,” he said. “So that's where Al-Qaeda and terrorists groups like the Akani Network and Al-Shabaab are residing, very remote regions. These drones can stay in the air for up to 24 hours and we can monitor people's movement on the grounds.”This would be less depressing if it was just Lindsay Graham, rather than most of congress, President Obama and most of the our political media that feels this way.
He said the idea of judicial oversight of drone strikes and targets is “crazy to me.”
“I can't imagine in World War II for Roosevelt to have gone to a bunch of judges and said, 'I need your permission before we can attack the enemy,'” Graham said.
He said the drone program “has been very effective.”
“We've killed 4,700,” Graham said. “Sometimes you hit innocent people, and I hate that, but we're at war, and we've taken out some very senior members of Al-Qaeda.”
He spoke of Anwar Al-awlaki.
“He's a guy that was born in the United States, he radicalized Major Hasan, the guy at Fort Hood,” Graham said. “He helped plan the underwear bomber attack that failed. He's been actively involved in recruiting and prosecuting the war for Al-Qaeda He was found in Yemen and we blew him up with a drone. Good.
“I didn't want him to have a trial,” he continued. “We're not fighting a crime, we're fighting a war. I support the president's ability to make a determination as to who an enemy combatant is. It's never been done by judges before. I support the drone program.”
Our choices are war via massive land invasion or war via drone strike. Anyone who believes there is another choice is unserious.
The telling part to me is this:
ReplyDelete“I didn't want him to have a trial,”
Not, "He was in Yemen. We didn't have the option to arrest him. We thought he was going to keep trying to have people killed. This was the only way we could see."
He didn't WANT him to have a trial. Even if it had been possible. Even if it had been EASY. He didn't want a trial. The purpose of a trial is to determine if the accusations against the defendant are true. He is either unconcerned with the truth of the matter, or is actively invested in hiding said truth.
There cannot be crimes so serious that there is no trial. There cannot be accusations so serious that they are their own proof. This is not how countries operating under the rule of law work.
Unfortunately, we aren't one of those anymore.
Really well said man. That part you highlighted is so startling.
ReplyDelete