Saturday, May 25, 2013

o-BOMB-a: The movie

Robert Greenwald is making a movie exposing the lies and truths about drone warfare. Here's his message:
On Thursday President Obama spoke before the American people giving a powerful and eloquent speech on the use of drones. Unfortunately the speech leaves many of the basic assumptions of a policy based on trying to kill our way to safety still in place. Help us change that.

Last year, I traveled to Pakistan and saw firsthand the damage that these drones are doing to families, businesses and the safety of our own country. Were the innocent men, women and children considered ‘a significant threat’ or did the drones malfunction? The program is still shrouded in secrecy, so all we know for sure is that countless of innocent Pakistanis are dead and the families they left behind are grieving and angry. We have some important and unique interviews but we can’t finish the film without your help.
Even if you can't afford a tiny donation, I strongly urge you to visit that website. Lot of info there -- stuff I didn't know, and I've been following this issue.

Like it or not, the time to institute checks on drone warfare is now. You won't get a better deal from the Republicans. As terrible as Obama has been, he is answerable to his base, and the base is becoming increasingly (albeit belatedly) pissed off.


Anonymous said...

Maybe you see something I don't with Barry O and his base. I see it as battered spouse syndrome; after the beatings comes apologies to do better only to be forgotten with the next beating. I'm at the point where I don't expect them to admit their mistakes on drones or anything else...hubris.

Propertius said...

he is answerable to his base

Well, yes, but I really doubt if either Chase or Goldman care much about drones.

Propertius said...

The only effective way to "institute checks" on the drone program is to adhere to the requirements of the Constitution: impeach for the crime of murder, convict in the Senate and remove the President from office, and then try both him and his predecessor in criminal proceedings (and, one assumes, convict and imprison both of them).

It's due process - a much better deal than any of the victims got.

I'm not going to hold my breath.

There is no way for a President, acting on his own, to impose "checks" which may not be undone, on a whim, by a successor.