The Attorney General has clarified the administration’s stance on drone usage on US soil, stating categorically that drones may NOT be used against citizens not engaged in active combat. While this raises interesting questions about the legality of using drones on foreign soil against US citizens not engaged in combat, (google Abdulrahman al-Awlaki) there is a far more important consequence.
What does this pull back by the White House say about the folks who were 100% A-OK with targeting American citizens on US soil? As far as I am concerned, they are now revealed as either contemptible bootlicking sycophants willing to allow their President to do any damn thing he pleases, or bloodthirsty tyrant wannabees who are unconcerned with any amount of collateral damage as long as it is somebody else who is dying.
Of course, we now have to worry about how the White House will define the word ‘combat.’ AS my kids’ grandfgather says,
According to todays paper, in 1965, the United States landed it’s first combat troops in Vietnam. Let me tell you folks I was there in 1962. The government must have had then the same definition of “combat” as it does now. Which is why it doesn’t ease my mind any to hear Obama say the government would not use drones on American citizens on American soil unless they were engaged in “combat”.
My father told stories of bringing Special Forces and Marines into South East Asia during his stint in the Navy which was well before 1965.
Leave a Reply