Dead is Dead in Syria. No More US Involvement in the Middle East

"My God, man! Drilling holes in his head isn't the answer! Now put away your butcher knives and let me save this patient before it's too late!" - Leonard Bones McCoy

Poison Gas! Oh no...

What crap. As if getting a hacked to death by machettes is better than drowning in your own blood after sucking-in mustard gas.

Some weapons are acceptable. Those machine guns emplacements which mowed down hundreds of thousands of men in World War 1were totally fine. That mustard gas which killed far less? Absolutely evil!

Of course, that Winston Churchill ordered British Dive Bombers to use poison gas on Iraqis in 1920 has been forgotten by everyone (save the Iraqi Insurgents during OIF who named their group the 1920 Revolutional Brigade).

One would think by now that Americans would understand that the Plutocratic Military-Industrial-Congressional-Complex runs this Nation.

Of course, we are going to conduct "MOOTW" in Syria. There enough votes on Both Sides to approve US military involvment. The Region and more importantly the oil reserves are still a keystone to the Strategic Goals of many nations.

What President Obama's call on Congress does is stick a finger in the eye of the Tea Party Assholes in Congress who claim to be so outside the normal corruption in DC.

There's going to be a split in the Republican Party over this, Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham never met a Bombing Campaign they didn't love, Speaker John Boehner has already indicated his support, but any of the Teahadists who vote against the interests of the MIC are going to find funding for their future political campaigns very hard to get. It doesn't mean they can't carve out a Ron Paul niche, but by and large a No Vote is going to doom them.

Right now, the Anti-American Tea Party is trying to figure the metrics. Mostly, it's coming down on Obama's a Muslim Terr-a-wrist so he's doing this to get Assad killed to help the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda just as he did in Libya and Egypt. 

But, while that works for the (ever-growing) Insane Faction of the Republican Party, most want to take War Credit while also damning President Obama. So you get the Marco Rubio/Paul Ryan Right-Wing Saviors who will vote for military action while claiming President Obama has already lost Syria by not invading earlier.

Sadly, it appears the yes votes for the initial Air Campaign, which may eventually Mission Creep into full-blown Regime Change in Syria, will come from the Democratic Party.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has voiced her support for the President will she drag enough Democrats along to get us embroiled in Syria?

Right now in Illinois, my Congressmen Peter Roskam (R) is Undecided and my Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth (D) is a No. Senator Mark Kirk (R) is a Yes and Senator Dick Durbin is Undecided.

The question is: the Middle East is nearly destabilized, what will more US military involvement do to the Region? My fear is a full-blown regional war which will set off a cascading sequence of events which involves Outside Powers because of the massive oil reserves.

Despite our Victory in Iraq as proclaimed by the Right-Wing Fart Bubble before George W(orst Ever) Bush skulked out of office, thousands are still dying in coordinated VBIED attacks, (What are you doing on the 5th Anniversary of Victory in Iraq Day on November 22nd?)

But, the Invasion of Iraq wasn't sold on Humanitarian grounds or Saddam's use of chemical weapons, it was sold on the Bush Regime making the connection between the 9/11 Hijackers and Saddam Hussein.

Yes, Saddam's evil use of chemical weapons was referenced by George W(orst Ever) Bush multiple times but the implication was he'd be giving those weapons (and his new nuclear ones) to Osama Bin Laden to attack us for Our Freedoms.

Of course, I could be wrong and Our Involvement may allow the Rebel Factions to swiftly overthrow and kill Assad as happened to Qaddafi in Libya. Republicans are still angered that President Obama directed a successful Operation in Libya. Hence the Benghazi-Mania which has festered and boiled inside the Right-Wing Fart Bubble as the Worst Disaster in the History of America.

But, that is what makes Syria a perplexing question. Does the use of military power ever aid anyone and can it help at all in Syria?

Stand* with Rand! (*Whites or Hot Tubs Owners Only)

Do you see me doin' thrill seeker liquor store hold-ups with a "Born To Lose" tattoo on my chest? -  Bobby DeNiro, Heat   

 The 13 Hour Filibuster staged by Seantor Rand Paul a mere month ago was a dishonest sham staged only for theater. On a Faux Business Network Interview Rand stated,

"If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him, but it’s different if they want to come fly over your hot tub, or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone."

You see only those people rob liquor stores whilst the right people own Hot Tubs. I've also been informed that Hot Tub users have a high tendency of smoking pot, I wouldn't know I don't have a hot tub or smoke pot.

So, Rand is fine with using a Drone to kill a suspect of a Robbery, presumably an American, who hasn't had his Due Process. Please recall that on March 7, 2013, Senators Rand Paul and Ted Cruz introduced a Senate Bill: To prohibit the use of drones to kill citizens of the United States within the United States.

Now, I wonder if Glenn Greenwald will begin a campaign of lies and vitriol against Rand in the same manner he has against President Obama? Because according to Greenwald, President Obama is worse than Dick Cheney because he infringed on an American's Constitutional Rights by authorizing a Drone Strike on Anwar al-Awaki (and his son).

Rand Paul is a right-wing madman who would do away with all Civil Rights Laws and Unchain Business so they could put Americans back in chains.

Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill and all the neoliberal hipsters and self-satisfied libertarians who rushed to Stand With Rand and deified him to thwart the evil anti-chirst Obama got used by Conservatives like they always do.

Conservatives never viewed the Drone issue as anything other than an opportunity to attack President Obama while getting some confused or ignorant lefties to aid them.

Drones are valuable tools and weapons. It makes no difference if a person is killed by bullets, blood chokes, burning or drone strike. Dead is Dead. Drones simply fall under the Use of Force and the 4th Amendment. 

As for surveillance, using a Drone is no different than using binoculars or my eyes. If I observe a crime or contraband in plain sight or if I have a properly obtained Search Warrant then there is no issue.

Update:
Rand realized he upset the Gravy Train of his deluded followers who fund him. And Nothing so alarms a Grifter, like Rand Paul, as when his Grift is threatened:

"My comments last night left the mistaken impression that my position on drones had changed. Let me be clear: it has not."

Please consider sending $25 to Help Rand Fight the DroneZ!

Stand with Rand? Glenn Greenwald blubbers about Drones defends his support of the Iraq War.

"But I had somebody last week in Washington from either Georgia or Alabama that was saying, ‘Look, this goes back to we have got to have at least 50 rounds in our magazines because on average that’s about how many it takes to bring down a drone.’ I hope he was kidding, I don’t know for sure." - Representative Louie Gohmert, Confederate States of America on Drones.

Glenn Greenwald has declared that President Obama is worse than Dick Cheney. Because Obama, unlike Cheney, never infringed on an American's Constitutional Rights the way Obama did by authroizing a Drone Strike on Anwar al-Awaki (and his son).

What is this? Did the backlash against executive power take this long to foment in Greenwald? Does Glenn Greenwald feel frightened that Obama, who is worse than Cheney, is going to send a Drone Strike against him for speaking out?

What's actually happening is Glenn Greenwald is like John Wayne. Wayne chicken hawked his way out of World War II and in response became a jingoistic warmonger and arch-conservative. Greenwald supported the Phony GWoT and Iraq War Crime and now to make up for it he's become a lunatic anarcho-libertarian declaring all Government Action to be the illegal Use of Force.

Here is the text of what Greenwald, himself, relies upon to excuse his tacit support of the Phony GWoT and the Iraq War.

I did support the war in Afghanistan and, living in New York, believed the rhetoric about the threat of Islamic extremism.  

At worst, I was guilty of apathy and passivity. I did nothing for or against it because I assumed that those in positions to exercise adversarial scrutiny – in journalism and politics – were doing that. 

I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration. Between the president’s performance in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the swift removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the fact that I wanted the president to succeed, because my loyalty is to my country and he was the leader of my country, I still gave the administration the benefit of the doubt.  

I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment deferred to, and to the extent that I was able to develop a definitive view, I accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country.

The swift removal of the Taliban? He assumed others were scrutinizing the Rush to War. Loyalty to My Country! I deferred to Bush's Judgement.

As the 10 year mark of that bloody debacle hits home, it's amazing to watch those who participated in bilking the American People whitewash themselves of their guilt. I think that in order to prove himself, Greenwald will equate Obama's policies with Hitler at every opportunity. It's a powerful display. Hundreds of Thousands of Sunnis, Shias, Afghans, Pastuns, and others killed during the a Multi-Trillion Dollar Theft of Generations and Glenn will spare no effort over Drones?

Drones are tools and weapons. All the hand-wringing over their use in the Phony GWoT* is a mistake. Drones are a valuable tool which allows infiltration deep into hostile territory for targeted killings. Why send in a SEAL Team or conventional forces when a Drone can accomplish the task?

Drones for Domestic Use are also not a concern. Drones simply fall under the Use of Force and the 4th Amendment.

It makes no difference if a person is killed by bullets, blood chokes, burning or drone strike. Dead is Dead.

And under US Law (reviewed by multiple SCOTUS rulings and written into State Laws) Killing someone is considered the Ultimate Seizure under the 4th Amendment.

For Reference the applicable reviews of the 4th Amendment are:

• Graham v. Conner (1989)
• Tennessee v. Garner (1985)

Drones and their use gained massive blog-o-sphere attention after the Filibuster of the Director of the CIA by Senator Rand Paul. Couch-Borne Commandos and Self-Styled Champions of Liberty,as long as Liberty isn't Black people getting equal rights, like Senator Paul may have a problem with Drones but that's only because they've never been shot at or had to go hands on with a criminal.

Make no mistake if you've allied yourself with Rand Paul on this you're siding with John C. Calhoun before the Civil War. 

Republicans and the Right-Wing Fart Bubble only mention Drones as a smear tactic against President Obama.

Now, there may be arguments to be made against the Use of Drones. But, if you're mad that President Obama is using Drones in and of themselves you are wrong.

If there had been a Drone available to use against Christopher Dorner (Or against the Newest Second Amendment Hero Kurt Myers) then it should have been authorized and used.

Remember Dorner had already killed 4 people. He published a manifesto in which he stated he was going to kill as many people as possible. Some only tangentially connected. On the day of his death he shot two more Deputies, killing one, carjacked a couple and holed up in house firing numerous rounds at the surrounding officers.

Against a person, such as Dorner, does Glenn Greenwald or Senator Paul demand we send in single officers one at a time to face them man-o y man-o?

Now, Greenwald did write a column asking whether "[A]n armed drone should be dispatched against Dorner?"

But, while Greenwald believed it to be a good thought experiment about "Due Process" and his belief that Drones represent a massive violation of civil liberties, it highlighted the misunderstanding of seizures under the 4th Amendment (again killing someone being the ultimate seizure) and the Use of Force.

Apparently, Greenwald believes "Due Process" entitles a person to this level of warning:

If you believe that a Government should not be killing it's citizens, ever, that's a legitimate debatable position. But, Drones aren't used for the killing of incarcerated persons.

If  you're concerned about Drones being used for surveillance, well unless you are complaining about Cameras in high-crime areas, wire-taps, and police officers with binoculars then it seems an arbitrary concern.

If you believe the President does not have the authority to use Drones for targeted killings overseas then your complaint is with Congress. Force Congress to exert their constitutionally-mandated War Powers Role and have them vote to seize back that power by removing authorization. 

There might be legitimate concerns about the Use of Drones and there should be oversight and legal guidelines but they are nothing more than a tool. Every tool can be misused.

*- The War on Terror has a War Crime of Epic Proportions and has lead to thousands of unnecessary deaths and criminal theft of Trillions. As such it should be ended. But, the Drone Strikes aren't the worst thing about it.