Different Day, Same Shit.

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVS), also known as drones, are aircraft either controlled by ‘pilots’ from the ground or increasingly, autonomously following a pre-programmed mission. (While there are dozens of different types of drones, they basically fall into two categories: those that are used for reconnaissance and surveillance purposes and those that are armed with missiles and bombs.

The use of drones has grown quickly in recent years because unlike manned aircraft they can stay aloft for many hours (Zephyr a British drone under development has just broken the world record by flying for over 82 hours nonstop); they are much cheaper than military aircraft and they are flown remotely so there is no danger to the flight crew.

While the British and US Reaper and Predator drones are physically in Afghanistan and Iraq, control is via satellite from Nellis and Creech USAF base outside Las Vegas, Nevada. Ground crews launch drones from the conflict zone, then operation is handed over to controllers at video screens in specially designed trailers in the Nevada desert. One person ‘flies’ the drone, another operates and monitors the cameras and sensors, while a third person is in contact with the “customers”, ground troops and commanders in the war zone. While armed drones were first used in the Balkans war, their use has dramatically escalated in Afghanistan, Iraq and in the CIA’s undeclared war in Pakistan.

- Sourced from Drone Wars UK

The new face of the ongoing forever war to root out suspected terrorists, further cement American hegemony in the Middle East and South Asia and to make the guys running Iran feel rather uncomfortable is what at first glance appears to be an overgrown RC plane with funny-looking fins. It's also an ever-growing bone of contention between the president, numerous Democrats, pundits fascinated with "poutrage" and the art of martyrdom for purity's sake and ordinary Americans who don't want to see some overgrown RC plane loitering over their house while grilling burgers in the backyard. Or get taken off this mortal coil by one.

The president's taken a beating over the use of drone warfare in the War on Terror time and again, mostly on the grounds of what he can and can't do in regards to using them and where. Most recently, members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus issued a letter to the administration demanding a little more transparency when it comes to drone use and the declassification of several DOJ memos that discuss the legal ramifications of targeting Americans in the commission of counterterrorism drone strikes. Some Senate Democrats are also asking questions:

President Barack Obama faced a tough question on drone policy from a fellow Democrat during a Senate meeting Tuesday and defended his administration's program, according to sources in the meeting.

The administration's drone program captured national attention last week when Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) carried out a nearly 13-hour filibuster to protest elements of it.

Rand specifically wanted clarification from the White House as to whether it believes it has the authority to use a drone to kill an American citizen on American soil who is not engaged in combat, as it feels it does when a citizen is on foreign soil. The day after Rand's filibuster, Attorney General Eric Holder answered that no, the president does not have such authority.

Senate Democrats were largely absent from Paul's filibuster last week. But on Monday, a group of progressive Senate Democrats pressed Obama on the issue. Details of the exchange so far are scarce.

"There was an exchange, but I don't want to get into the specifics," said Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.).

"Basically, the president said that they're doing everything they can to comply with the law and to give information to members of the Intelligence Committee," said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who paused for a long moment before answering. "And he said they would continue on that path."

A source in the meeting said one question was posed by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), a member of the Committee on Intelligence. A spokesperson for Rockefeller didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

I'm all for a little clarification and a definite restraint on power, in this case. Getting comfortable with the idea of drone warfare opens the doors to drones as a general solution for every "problem." Law enforcement agencies are chomping at the bit for a chance to deploy drones for surveillance and the FAA's accommodating them with a law that will, among other things, open up the nation's airspace to drones. A few states are attempting to put a damper on that fun before it even begins.

I thought I wouldn't have to blog about Glenn Greenwald again, but Greenwald has a way of staying within the Man's peripheral vision. Just take a look at this Chirpstory, where Tim Wise goes toe-to-toe with Greenwald and Be Scofield: EDIT: Said Chirpstory can be found here.

Feeling a bit dizzy? Discombobulated, perhaps? Ok, let's break this down.

Due to President Obama's expanding use of drones in fighting terrorists in Afghanistan, Glenn Greenwald and the like have likened Obama to George Bush when it comes to foreign policy. Since President Obama has yet to end the War on Terror, full stop, he continues to come under criticism from Greenwald, et al. Be Scofield wondered if President Obama would continue to allow drone strikes if the largely Muslim victims, many who are involved as collateral damage in the pursuit of Muslim extremists and terrorists, were black Americans, instead. Yes, even purported liberal voices can pull the Race Card now and again, for their own purposes. Now that you have the discussion framing, let's get down to the meat of the discussion.

Adrian Charles countered with an essay by Tim Wise on how the policies of Ron Paul, that wily underdog savior of all that is progressive in the world, happen to line up with those of well-known white supremacist David Duke. I covered several aspects of Paul's deficiencies in regards to ethnic relations and how many progressives still managed to fall headlong in love with the guy. And this is where the wheels on the logic bus just sort of fall off here.

Ok, so it's been established that President Obama's foreign policy is racist, as it, according to Greenwald and Scofield, targets Muslims, who are often considered "people of color." Scofield wants ardent Obama supporters to imagine those Muslim victims as black Americans and then ask themselves if they would still support Pres. Obama. Ergo, Pres. Obama is racist and so are you, if you support him.

Meanwhile, Ron Paul wants to end the War on Terror, automatically making him a good guy to many. Assuming this is true, he would also end the drone strikes. Ergo, he is not a racist, since it seems he's looking out for the best interests of people of color by putting an end to their massacre. Unfortunately, if you've read up on the company Paul kept and his views, many of which happen to align with those of notable bigots and racists, then you'd see that the man is, despite many of his policies aligning with those that progressives crave, is a racist. Except that he isn't, by Greenwald and Scofield's standards.

@bescofield: @timjacobwise @ggreenwald Obama has eliminated the civil rights of more people of color than Paul has i.e. killing them.

It's well known that Ron Paul vehemently disagrees with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and wishes to do away with it, thereby stripping many of the protections that black Americans have taken for granted for decades on end. If something like this actually happens, it will have a detrimental effect on the treatment of black Americans and their ability to effect political change through the very mechanisms that have been used to great effect for centuries, one that would last for a very long time. But no, this isn't racist. Neither is associating one self with racists. For Scofield, it's the bodies of "people of color" overseas that matter, since it feeds into the "Obama=Racist" and "Obama=Bush" memes.

@bescofield: @timjacobwise @ggreenwald Obama doesn't believe in hierarchy of the races, but he kills more people of color than Duke + Paul together.

"Hierarchy of the races." That's how Scofield explains the policies and opinions of Duke, Black, Paul and any other bigoted individual who believes in white supremacy. Considering the struggles, trials and tribulations that black Americans have gone through just to be considered equal under the law, this is just downright insulting. And yet Scofield and Greenwald expect black Americans to que up behind Ron Paul because he happens to represent the best "Anti-Obama" that these guys could come up with (Hillary Clinton is the "Anti-Obama" of the Villager/Firebagger set). Just because some aspects of the man's policies happen to line up with those of progressive liberals. Duke, et al. are nothing to worry about since they only believe in the "hierarchy of the races." No, there's not much wrong with whites believing they are mentally, physically and socially superior to blacks.

At any rate, that's not terribly important to Scofield. Instead, it's the bodies overseas that matter. 243 targeted attacks via drones since 2009, netting 2264 casualties, most of those representing collateral damage, in the pursuit of extremists and terrorists. For a number of reasons, President Obama cannot end this cold turkey, just as he could not end the War in Iraq cold turkey - that had to be drawn down with a well thought-out plan that helped the U.S. effectively "save face" without causing any political or foreign policy backlash. The drone attacks will end in the same way. After all, Pres. Obama's push for more drones served to prevent further U.S. soldier casualties in Afghanistan. Between nameless, faceless bodies in rubble and U.S. servicemen offloaded from C-130s in flag-draped caskets, which one would serve to further wreck the Obama Administration and give Republicans more ammo with which to end his term in office?

Actually, many progressives would prefer the latter, since it would do just that, as many believe Pres. Obama is long past the point of redemption as far as progressive politics are involved. Some want to believe that being pelted by rocks supplied by progressives and thrown by Republicans would cause him to "wake up" and start doing the bidding of Greenwald and the Village crowd, for once. Seeing a black (or bi-racial, if one wants to get all picky about it) president pragmatically navigate his way through treacherous political waters while remaining unscathed does absolutely nothing for them. And this is not coming from an "Obot" or "Obama groupie" - this comes from someone who recognizes pragmatism as a means of survival for what it is - it's not weakness, "being like Bush" or 11-dimensional chess - it's being smart enough to realize that going Magic Negro™ or Hillary Clinton in regards to foreign and domestic policy will guarantee a single-term presidency.

To wit, "Obama (black/bi-racial guy) = Racist" and "Ron Paul (white guy with dubious ties) = Not Racist." This sort of mindfucking in order to get the responses you want is a specialty of Greenwald and Scofield, apparently, and it sucks in plenty of people who don't know better. It's all headgaming at its finest.

As I said in my very first blog post, it's better to have your own stuff, because you never know when you'll end up being shown the door at other venues, especially if you happen to be a contributing blogger whose views suddenly clash with the status quo or offend the site administrator or founder. Those who ran afoul of famous firebagger Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake learned that the hard way. Fellow blogger Redeye parted ways with Left in Alabama after a number of disagreements among former fellow bloggers there.

Which brings me to this bit of fallout from the epic Greenwaldian clusterfuck that has most of the blogosphere in stitches:

In case you’re not up to speed, long story short, I had a Twitter discussion with Marcy Wheeler about the NDAA; a Greenwald supporter quipped that if I saw Obama raping a nun on live TV, I would defend him for it; another supporter quipped that I would fantasize about playing the role of the raped nun; and Greenwald piled on. When asked to account for the clumsy rape metaphor, Greenwald doubled down, claiming that it wasn’t a metaphor, and that he actually believed that I and other Obama supporters would defend Obama if we were to see him raping a nun.

In what world is such a comment appropriate? It was a vile thing to say, and it is a vile thing to defend. Moreover, the stalwartness and cluelessness with which people, including John Cole, defended that statement is disappointing.

To be clear: I neither asked nor expected John to defend me. I can and do defend myself. But I was surprised and stunned that he stridently defended Greenwald when he could have, and should have, said nothing. Even worse, he managed to cast Greenwald as a victim. Stunning.

Both Greenwald’s comments and the comments offered in defense are incontrovertibly offensive to women, offensive to rape survivors, and are inexcusable. Does that mean I think Greenwald is pro-rape? Of course not. But using rape as a metaphor or leveraging it to score political points is tone-deaf, at best, and malicious at worst.

The above is from contributor "Angry Black Lady," who sadly will be leaving Balloon Juice behind this bullshit. She has her own blog with a stellar cast of contributors, so her departure from the blog won't be a devastating event. But her departure in of itself is rather disturbing, for reasons I'll go into later on.

This isn't the first time she's had a major disagreement with John Cole, recovering conservative and founder of Balloon Juice. Both came to blows when it came to the NDAA. But I was led to believe that it was more or less "no harm, no foul" in the end, just two bloggers voicing fiercely strong opinions on a subject, particularly one with a potential to cause ill will among bloggers and commentators.

This time, the whole affair became patently ridiculous. At the heart of it all was this Chirpstory, in which Twitter user @DrDawg made an unfortunate comment about ABL's supposed willingness to defend Pres. Obama no matter what he did, with Glenn Greenwald effectively co-signing the comment:



These two tweets helped set off a firestorm of indignation and criticism from other users, something that Greenwald quickly proved himself as being incapable of handling further into the storyline. Somewhere in there, John Cole affected a stance that attempted to criticize people for essentially making a bigger deal of this than he thought should have been made:


If you want to make the point that 1)people are wrongly attributing this quip to Greenwald, and 2)lambasting Greenwald for this quip is a waste of energy, this is the wrong way to go about it. The above made Cole look less like an impartial observer wishing to set the record straight and more like someone who attempted to pick the most indirect way of defending Greenwald possible.

Many people didn't see things the way Cole and others saw them, as seen below: (HT to @dvnix)


As a result, the blog split into two camps, one that defended Greenwald and others on the so-called Professional Left while castigating ABL and others for defending Pres. Obama, and others who were genuinely outraged by what seemed to be a free pass given to Greenwald, et al. "Unquestioning Obama defenders" was the overarching meme for those posts, directed at those who disagreed with Greenwald's Chicken Little bullshit and those who attempted to explain Obama's position on NDAA.

Ever since that post on the NDAA and whether or not indefinite detention existed for American citizens (answer: it doesn't), I've always had this feeling that half of the blog's commentator pool wanted to castigate and upbraid the "uppity" ABL for expressing opinions that ran contrary to what they wanted to believe at the time. Perhaps that vibe was always there, but from that point on, it grew into epic proportions. The commentators at Balloon Juice are known for copious amounts of snark, but a growing number of people became prone to getting downright nasty when it came to certain issues.

Between that, the growing lovefest with civil libertarianism and the attendant boy-crush on Next American Hero™ Ron Paul, I figured ABL's departure would come sooner or later. It's hard NOT to interject "race" into this subject, especially given how this country is literally soaked to the bone with racial antagonism, but I couldn't help but get the vibe that some wanted to dress down and/or chase away ABL for not conforming to the views expressed by an obviously superior white Progressive Liberal, whose views were to be automatically respected and questioned. Remember (this goes out to those who don't do reading comprehension well), this isn't a sweeping indictment on the behavior of the people on the blog, just a somewhat disturbing observation of a few commentators.

What disturbs me the most is a growing number of self-proclaimed liberals and progressives cosigning with a man who not only stood with white supremacist figures, but also has a mountain of evidence that outs him as being less than comfortable with minorities, no matter how much he and his supporters claim to have their best interests at heart. It's a bit unnerving to read the newsletters about his pathological fear of blacks and gays, only to be goaded into supporting Ron Paul because his stance on drugs happens to coincide with the welfare of the black community by coincidence. But that's the sort of thing his supporters want to drive home. Blacks and Latinos are supposed to climb aboard the Straight Talk Ron Paul Express, no questions asked, for a few trinkets crafted purely by coincidence.

I suspect there's a deeper game afoot, one that involves using the ever-present levels of poutrage and indignation over Pres. Obama's failures to deliver the ideal presidential experience progressive liberals wanted to kneecap the president's chances at re-election, by driving an deep and permanent wedge between progressive liberals who are for Obama and progressive liberals who are fed up with the guy. Convince the dissatisfied side to not vote (or vote for Ron Paul) as a way to strike back at an "ineffective" Obama, and you'll have the recipe for the GOP slotting in their preferred candidate come Nov. 2012 with relative ease. And having President Romney in office come 2013 doesn't bother many Professional Lefties one bit, as these guys are the least affected economically by conservative policy -- in fact, their bank accounts rely on having conservatives in power for PLs to complete the self-effacing perpetual underdog routine, something that's hard to do when "your guys" are in power. A guy like Greenwald is the perfect trojan horse for knocking lesser minds off balance while sowing the seeds for a Democrat wash, and a conservative victory.

ABL will be fine. There's no doubt about that. But I worry about the increasingly hostile atmosphere back at Balloon Juice and how it will shape future political values and opinions.

The bad thing about piggybacking off of someone else's ill-conceived comment is that the shit winds up on you, too, as evinced by the tweets listed afterwards in this Chirpstory. Seriously, Chirpstory is a wonderful tool for saving and showcasing shit like this for all to see, for whatever the Internet defines as posterity.*

Everyone and their dog already knows the specifics about the National Defense Authorization Act and how the boogeyman threat of the president having unlimited powers to detain U.S. citizens without so much as a "hey, wait a sec" was thoroughly debunked. Yet this guy, who evidently has a hard-on for attacking the president for not paying more attention to him and his fellow Cocktail Liberals and attendant emoprogs is still swinging for the fences over this bill. Obama won't risk what political capital he has to veto the NDAA, so guys like Greenwald and anyone else they can scare with their brand of hysteria are effectively stomping their feet like a bunch of five-year-olds in a supermarket aisle deprived of their choice of cereal.

You have to wonder what's it to Greenwald, et al. to attempt to bring the president to heel over NDAA, besides exercising their right to chastise Obama for not being a good Magic Negro™ by closely adhering to the Professional Left's wishlist of "Things That Obama Should Have Done Within 90 Days of Being In Office". I understand the frustration that many liberals have with President Obama, but the last thing that's needed during an election year is a long line of sour faces who've sworn off voting for Obama because he chose to exercise a great degree of pragmatism in an increasingly hostile legislative environment, instead of throwing caution to the wind and indulging in ramming through bills and public policy, consequences be damned.

Here's a president who stepped back and allowed the Tea Party to swiftly become irrelevant, the GOP to implode and the blame for the vast majority of our current economic ills to fall on conservative measures and policy, all the while taking care of terrorist boogeyman Osama bin Laden, promoting policies that actually produce jobs instead of generating more tax cuts and successfully withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. And Greenwald, et al. are not satisfied with this man's performance so far.

As a reminder concerning the NDAA:

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

And here is President Obama's signing statement concerning NDAA (H.R. 1540) sections 1021 and 1022:

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are “captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa’ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.

I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa’ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.

My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.