So I sent this gentleman an ask after he called armedplatypus a "libertarian nut" and so I was curious as to his opinions of the President’s foreign policy, as he claimed to be anti-war. Apparently, this is not so.
Because of this, I’ve decided to dissect his points one-by-one because quite honestly none of them made any sense.
"um no America has the right to use whatever weaponry it can to defend itself from enemy combatants. If you knew anything about foreign polict you would realize this."
In order to engage in hostilities, Congress must declare war on a country, or have the permission of said country to use force in their territory. We do not have the permission of the Yemeni, Somali, or Pakistani governments to either violate their airspace with drones, or send in special forces teams to root out "terrorists". Secondly, please explain to me how a collection of civilians, and maybe a few local insurgents, seven thousand miles away, attending a wedding, pose any sort of threat to the people of the United States. Then explain to me why the first-responders who react to those strikes are killed by an additional missile, despite being neither a threat to the United States, or have any intent beyond helping the wounded. To my recollection, it is a violation of the Geneva Convention to kill wounded enemy soldiers, or those trying to help them. I’m fairly sure this is something we consider a war crime.
I’m not entirely sure what you’re getting at, considering I neither support Rand Paul, or was mentioning his filibuster. I’m mentioning the deaths of Samir Khan and Anwar Al-Awlaki, both of whom were American citizens; while they were supporters of various insurgent groups, as American citizens, they cannot legally be killed without a fair and public trial, which they did not receive. The third American, Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki, was killed in a separate strike than the two others. He was sixteen years old at the time of his death, a full-fledged American citizen, and guilty of no crime beyond being his father’s son. Robert Gibbs, the President’s press secretary, practically admitted the strike was authorized "Because he should have had a better father". Not only are executions of minors illegal, but executions without either a trial or a criminal charge is unconstitutional. This is the murder of a sixteen year old American with the wave of the President’s hand. That is a war crime.
It is practically confirmed that despite the 2014 withdrawal date, thousands of American soldiers will remain in Afghanistan to train ANA forces, and local police. Let me remind you that John Kerry is quoted as saying “Not every single soldier will leave in 2014. We have been very clear about that. We are not withdrawing we are drawing down.”That does not sound like a full withdrawal to me. We will likely remain in Afghanistan, in some ways, for at least another decade.
"the nsa doesn not listen to phone calls. just hoplds phone contacts of certain people and checks where calls go and come from."
This is still illegal. The Fourth Amendment specifically states that without a warrant, searches, including those involved with the internet or phones, are unlawful and unconstitutional. I do not recall the NSA being given a warrant for the entire United States of America. Not only that, but don’t I distinctly remember Democrats like yourself being rightfully up in arms about the PATRIOT Act, which is just as illegal as the NSA’s current operations?
"Obama needs congressional approval to close Guantanomo bay. And he has not recieved that."
To my recollection, he hasn’t tried to get it. Actions speak far louder than the words of a mass-murdering politician.
"pretty sure manning leaked American secrets to people."
And which people did he leak this information to? Information that showed US forces committing war crimes? Oh, right, the American people. Because apparently, supporting an open, transparent government only applies when it’s politically convenient.
Oh, and the term is "anarchist" not "libertarian". Might want to do your research next time.