Trying to jibe his putative claim to being a “liberal law professor” with his new self-appointed job of literally deciding who lives and who dies across the entire planet, the piece makes it seem that the policy is something the president is loath to carry out, with Tom Donilon saying he is “determined to keep the tether pretty short” on the program.
Which makes a great soundbite, but bears no resemblance to the policy, which transformed from extremely rare strikes restricted to the Pakistani border during the last years of the Bush Administration into a daily campaign of assassinating his perceived enemies across the planet, with the revelation that President Obama personally approves every single drone strike launched. That amounts to well over 1,000 killed since he took office, all but a handful never to be identified beyond the label of “suspect.”
Obama’s current kill list is still a closely guarded secret, but the article revealed that it contained several Americans, including an unidentified 17-year-old American girl that the president is hoping to knock off at some point. The best the article can conclude is that Obama’s past comments suggest he probably feels bad about ordering these killings, but that clearly isn’t stopping him.
I wonder if this is the sort of thing Obama hates doing, but believes that it’s the only way to “protect” this country. I also hate to say this, but I’m willing to bet that the Bin Laden raid wouldn’t have happened without this policy.
I’m not terribly concerned with the killing of American citizens specifically - the name on the passport makes no difference to me. But I think what really bothers me is the degree to which this military policy’s practical effects do not reach the general populace. Even with Iraq and Afganistan, soldiers came back with descriptions of what happened. In a sense, even if the press was largely complicit for a long time, we knew what the war looked like. This war, on the other hand, is an unknown. From what I’ve read, maybe the 2005 film Syriana is an accurate image.
If that’s true, I’m glad the president is personally choosing who goes on the Kill List. I’d rather it be all up to one man than some mid-level manager in the Pentagon.
This isn’t to say I support the policy at all - I disagree with it on a fundamental, moral level, much like I disagree with most American government policy (I left for a reason!) And I think I’ll leave it at that.
The recent showing by the Supreme Court upholding the immoral and completely unconstitutional Individual Mandate has solidified my belief that there will never be a government that preserves liberty.
Any minarchst feelings in me are now gone. They’re as dead as the liberty in this country is.
My only hope now is to have a Congress blow apart Obamacare on their own (not gonna happen) or have a state nullify it on their own (not gonna happen).
Even if Romney is elected and allows states to opt out of it, my state (Pennsylvania) is too blue of a state to do that.
If there ever was a time to be scared of your government, now is the time.
You’re from my state? Oh man. Whiskey Rebellion time! Only I will tax the whiskey, and you can be the toothless guy complaining about “libbuhdee” while we give millions of people the right to life.
Look, like, there are things about libertarianism that I can get behind. There are lots of things about it that make sense, even if I actually feel, um, completely the opposite about all of them. You know? Midori and I are friends, for the love of Christ.
But if you honest-to-God think thatliberty in this country is DEAD because everyone has to buy healthcare so everyone can have healthcare and that is a bigger deal to you than… than… Jesus God, than any other thing that is wrong that you should also care about, I can’t even, like, abortion access? gay marriage? that thing where the NYPD look mostly at brown people? ANY OF THESE THINGS ARE LESS OF A PROBLEM FOR YOU THAN MAKING PEOPLE BUY INSURANCE?
Like, sure, okay, maybe the government shouldn’t make people buy things*, but priorities, man.
* - spoiler alert: I’m a big giant welfare state liberal, so this doesn’t actually bother me.
Yes, liberty is dead. It’s been dead, honestly, but any chances of it being resurrected are honestly gone - unless we have a serious change.
I don’t care if you’re a welfare state liberal. That’s cool bro. The point of liberty and being a libertarian is that you don’t force things that you want on others.
You’re absolutely ignorant if you think that this will decrease costs, or that everyone can have healthcare if they are forced to buy it (reality check here girl: this is not a welfare state solution, but rather a crony capitalist solution).
This is my priority: increase human liberty and autonomy and watch as society progresses towards a better future just as Smith predicted with his idea of the “invisible hand”.
Smith’s economic philosophy does not make sense without his moral philosophy. I read both in the frou-frou college I went to. Don’t lecture me about the “invisible hand.”
In other news: I don’t care if you’re a libertarian. That’s cool, bro. The point of being a welfare-state liberal is that I think you’re owed a real, substantive safety net, and I and everyone else should help provide it, whether you’re unpleasant on the internet or not.
You’re absolutely ignorant if you think that this doesn’t actually mean that more people will have insurance than would have it without it (reality check here, boy: this is not a welfare-state solution, but it’s a foothold for me to use while I clamor for one).
This is my priority: make whatever halting, stupid steps we can toward easing the immediate suffering of millions before declaring that the government fining people for not buying healthcare—or forcing them to buy it—is some new, fresh dirt on the grave of liberty. Priorities, dude.
Don’t call me “girl.”
Right, cause all the poor people in North Philly can afford the mandate’s “tax”.
Please, if you’re focused on helping the poor, you’d let markets work.
But you’re not, as you’ve stated you feel that people are “owed” something.
You’re an entitled, lazy, welfare queen, just like the rest of the liberals who support the crony capitalist ACA and any other “rights” that you magically come up with.
Maybe I’m too late for this utterly myopic loser, but I’m legitimately curious - when you say “liberty” what do you mean, exactly? Is this a freedom to do whatever you want? Some people (such as me, Bailey, Obama, most supporters of ACA) would argue that by guaranteeing affordable healthcare to everyone, the government is allowing people to have the freedom to do whatever they want, since, without real healthcare, an individual’s options are severely limited.
If all your money goes towards treating a serious illness, how can you possibly exercise your liberty?
my dream scene in any film is for Beat Takeshi as a yakuza to have a shootout in a cafe, which causes a huge mess, except that the cafe is owned by Bill Murray, who comes out and is all, “aw man, c’mon!” so they sit down, have some coffee and cigs, and talk about jazz music.