How Obama Transformed an Old Military Concept So He Can Drone Americans

“Imminence” used to mean something in military terms: namely, that an adversary had begun preparations for an assault. In order to justify his drone strikes on American citizens, President Obama redefined that concept to exclude any actual adversary attack.


That’s the heart of the Justice Department’s newly leaked white paper, first reported by NBC News, explaining why a “broader concept of imminence” (.pdf) trumps traditional Constitutional protections American citizens enjoy from being killed by their government without due process. It’s an especially striking claim when considering that the actual number of American citizens who are “senior operational leader of al-Qaida or its associated forces” is vanishingly small. As much as Obama talks about rejecting the concept of “perpetual war” he’s providing, and institutionalizing, a blueprint for it.

Imminence has always been a tricky concept. It used to depend on observable battlefield preparations, like tanks amassing near a front line, missile assemblage, or the fueling of fighter jet squadrons. Even under those circumstances, there has been little international consensus about when a nation under threat can take action. A classic example is Israel’s June 1967 bombing of the Egyptian Air Force on its tarmac, which followed months of signals that Egypt was about to launch a massive assault. Whether you view Israel or Egypt as the aggressor tends to depend on your sympathy to either party in the conflict.

President George W. Bush contended that the U.S. had to invade Iraq not because the government knew Saddam Hussein was about to launch an attack on America, but because it didn’t. Bush contended thatuncertainty about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, augmented by 9/11′s warnings of shadowy terrorist groups plotting undetectable attacks, redefined “imminence” to mean the absence of dispositive proof refuting the existence of an unconventional weapons program that could be used in an attack. But when U.S. troops invaded, they learned that Saddam did not possess what Bush aide Condoleezza Rice famously termed a smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Click to expand...

shadowqueenMedea said:

I'll take it one step further. Maybe the reason we went to Iraq in the first place is to give our troops training in "urban warfare". That way, when the second revolution inevitably happens, they will know how to fight urban guerrilla forces and people who use IEDs. Food for thought.

Click to expand...

Ilrita said:

He treats Americans just as he treats the poor innocents in the Middle East and the terrorists he drowns. It is sad that no one will stand up to Obama and his administration for the murder he commits not only against his own people, but innocents across the world.

Click to expand...

shadowqueenMedea said:

lol If the right stood up to Obama any more than they already have, he'd be assassinated by now. All republicans do is lie about where he was born, lie about his political beliefs, and block every policy his administration tries to pass. It's because they are all tools of corporate-run America.

Don't forget about who dragged us into this war in the first place, while taking away our fourth amendment rights with the Patriot Act. And I'm not talking about the Bush Administration. I'm talking about the Military Industrial Complex. On January 22, 2009, Obama signed executive orders directing the CIA to close down Gitmo. However, it has yet to be shut down. If you think the President controls the military you are sorely mistaken. The difference between Obama and Bush is that while Bush was just a tool of the M.I.C. and big oil, Obama actually tried standing up to them and failed.

Click to expand...

Adolf Stormcloak said:

Last one, I promise!

Click to expand...

Punz said:

Man, your signature actually creeped me out! lol!

Click to expand...

Ilrita said:

What a terrible and insulting generalization you have made. And what a "good excuse" for Obama, too.

I entirely disagree of grouping Republicans into one based on the media whores as it is all but a generalization. However, I am not sure why you brought the Republicans up in this. I won't get into the rather tiresome "Republicans are evil, Obama isn't" ("lol" Democrats signed off on this moreso than Republicans) debate as it wages across the internet enough, but I did not see how your post answers Obama's Administration approving of drone strikes. It is well known fact that Obama is known as the "Drone Strike President" and this his presidential terms are being known as the "drone war" for his role in the use of the Program.

Also, Obama is the one who gives the okay to his drone strikes (executive orders, by the way), and quite frankly, I'm surprised you didn't know this. Why else did you think Obama hand picked John Brennan as Director to the CIA to lead the Drone strike Program? It certainly wasn't to not drone people. And if he had a problem with how he and his administration carries out these attacks or that they are carried out, he would stop it or "attempt" to as you have just tried to pass off to me.

I suggest you read The Letter to Brennan, into some new articles, or even wikipedia, the damning wikileaks, or into the Drone Strike issue itself because you will see how Obama is responsible for the drone strikes not only on non-US innocents, but on American citizens what he himself considers "a threat" on whatever "evidence" he "has".

But yes, it isn't Obama's fault this happens on HIS watch;

moreso than it has EVER happened including under the Republicans you obviously have such a problem with. Obama won't even disclose how many have died since his drone strikes, and that is very damning. 50 civilians die to the 1 terrorist each drone strike! But let's just forget about that and the similar victims like the poor boy Obama murdered, a citizen of America. If you don't know him, he is Anwar Al-Awlaki's son "Abdulrahman al-Awlaki", who sadly both were never given their American rights. The boy was murdered by drone strike for "suspicions" because of who his father was.

Here are some links to get you going;

Probing Obama's drone wars - Inside Story Americas - Al Jazeera English
EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans - Open Channel

*just to tell you, one of those links holds a video of Obama talking of it....so....yea. Don't tell me Obama is innocent in this slaughter.*

Obama doesn't want terrorists to be tortured, but he certainly has no problem with murdering them and innocents. He certainly has tried to stick up for some things, but what I wish he would do is stop murdering people or letting people be murdered on his watch.

I'll leave you to the rest. You can continue, of course, to ignore the murder Obama has done as you so obviously want to, but hopefully you still realize how wrong you are.

Have a nice day and or night.

Click to expand...

Adolf Stormcloak said:

Last one, I promise!

Click to expand...

shadowqueenMedea said:

Drone strikes BAD... Sending in American ground forces to be slaughtered along with even more possible Muslim innocents GOOD, like I said in the I Hate Republicans thread.

Click to expand...

shadowqueenMedea said:

Drone strikes BAD... Sending in American ground forces to be slaughtered along with even more possible Muslim innocents GOOD, like I said in the I Hate Republicans thread.

If you think I'm so extreme, why don't you peruse the Politics Politics Politics thread I made in the Lobby a few months ago? I think you'll be surprised.

Click to expand...

Ilrita said:

And like in the Republican thread, you make no sense. We still have soldiers in these countries alongside these drone strikes. Why, what was it that Obama asked for? A "surge" of troops? Hmmm!

At least the American soldiers have a chance to defend themselves, don't they? The babies the drones blow up into pieces have no idea what is about to happen and have no way to stop it. Plus you are counting casualties that are mostly from the terrorist's side, but also over a course of 10 years while Obama has been droning for only his first time. Give it some more time, more innocents will die by his hands.

Obama has a very large amount of drone strikes, of the ones we have seen that cannot be denied, of a whopping "310" whilst Bush only had 53. And Bush refrained from it and he's an evil Republican! And then our wonderful, Democratic, good cause pursuing wonderman saw to it that any "militant age ready" victim of his drone strikes be automatically considered terrorists....simply for being "in age" of a typical terrorist. He and his Administration call these victims "militants" and refuses to acknowledge them as victims or innocent.

In what innocents NAF estimates the death toll around 2,887, and for the "militants" NAF estimates around "2,416" for the highs. And that's just NAF and what is known. But they, Obama and his Administration, have no evidence that these people were terrorists except that they were in close proximity of a terrorist or a terrorist zone.

I don't think you are extreme, I just think you don't know what you are talking about. Direct me to the thread and I will take a look at it. And I'm sure I could be surprised by you, both in a bad way and in a good way. However, right now, I am surprised in a bad way.

The Democratic ideals includes something for the minority and right now neither you, Obama, his Administration, or any other "in the media" Democrat in support of such a notion actually take action, real action. The minority includes those that get slaughtered outside our home country.

Some of them like to claim they care more than the Republicans, but they don't.

Click to expand...