Rep. Mike Rogers Angry That 'Red Tape' Is Preventing More Drone Bombings Of Innocent People
from the how-is-this-man-in-power? dept
All of this has apparently infuriated Rogers, who is insisting that by having some basic guidelines on how drones are used means that we're all going to die. It's a typical insane war-mongerer's cry: if you don't give me and my friends total power, then you will be less safe. And Rogers plays the stereotypical role exactly:
“The President’s May 2013 policy changes for U.S. targeted strikes are an utter and complete failure and they leave Americans’ lives at risk,” Rogers said at the outset of a hearing on global threats to U.S. security.Rogers also complained about President Obama's speeches on the matter, in which he dared to suggest that the US should only use drones when there was "near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured — the highest standard we can set." According to Rogers, that position -- of trying to not kill innocent civilians -- is just "political expediency."
“Individuals who would have previously been removed from the battlefield by U.S. counterterrorism operations for attacking or plotting against U.S. interests remain free because of self-imposed red tape. While we are busy pondering more ‘transparency,’ our intelligence professionals are left paralyzed because of totally incoherent policy guidance,” the Michigan Republican added.
“That is not leadership,” Rogers declared. “We are in a fight, and our policy should be dictated by what best protects America, and not what is politically expedient.”Of course, even with the new policies in place, there's been plenty of coverage of the fact that a US drone strike took out a wedding party in Yemen -- so apparently the "red tape" didn't stop that sort of indiscriminate killing of innocent people.
Frankly, it's kind of scary that someone in power -- especially the guy who's supposed to be in charge of oversight for the intelligence community -- appears to be spitting mad that the people he's supposed to keep in line have to actually justify extrajudicial killing of people via drones.
Of course, this is the same guy who claims that if you don't know your privacy is being violated, then it isn't being violated -- so by extension, I guess we can assume that if you don't know you were killed indiscriminately by a drone, it doesn't count. Right?