PDA

View Full Version : Bravo President Obama



Gayle in MD
06-06-2012, 03:18 PM
al Qaeda is at its lowest level of operational power since 9/11, thanks to the Obama Administration's foreign policies, and our great CIA and their capabilities to keep our country safer.

Our country has killed the most powerful, most irreplaceable top leader of al Qaeda, since bin Laden was finally killed by our country, also, under President Obama's leadership, thirteen years after Bush's "Wanted, dead or alive" statements.

Since bin Laden was killed this al Qaeda leader had taken his place, and was the top leader, and essential to al Qaeda's planning and operations.

BRAVO MR. PRESIDENT!


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/pakistani-officials-drone-strike-kills-top-al-qaeda/story?id=16489914






By MARTHA RADDATZ
June 4, 2012

A top al Qaeda leader and longtime Osama Bin Laden confidant with a $1 million price tag on his head was targeted in a U.S. drone strike this morning in Pakistan, according to a senior U.S. official.

Pakistan officials say that Abu Yahya al-Libi, second-in-command to current al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, was among the 15 people killed when a U.S. drone fired four missiles into a suspected militant hideout in Mir Ali, a town in North Waziristan, at 5:30 a.m. local time Monday.

The senior U.S. official confirmed to ABC News that al-Libi was the target of a strike, but said the U.S. is still trying to confirm that he was killed. "This would be big" if confirmed, said the official.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The strike was the third in the tribal region that straddles the Afghanistan-Pakistan border in the past three days, and seventh in the past two weeks -- a span during which Pakistani officials say more than two dozen suspected militants have been killed. </span>

If his death is confirmed, al-Libi would be among the highest profile al Qaeda members to be killed by U.S. forces since a Navy SEAL raid killed top al Qaeda commander bin Laden in May 2011. The U.S. government has offered a $1 million reward through its Rewards for Justice program for information leading to al Libi's capture.

Al-Libi recently emerged as one of the most public faces of al Qaeda, appearing in several training and propaganda videos in the past two years. A letter from al-Libi chastising the leadership of the Pakistani Taliban was found among bin Laden's documents captured during the U.S. raid.

It's believed al-Libi spent a short period studying Islamic theology in Mauritania in the early 1990s, before moving to Afghanistan to fight alongside bin Laden and other al Qaeda figures.


Shortly thereafter, he is believed to have returned to Libya, where he became part of the fledgling Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, working to overthrow Moammar Gadhafi and establish an Islamic state in the African country, before returning to Afghanistan.

In 2002, after NATO forced toppled the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, al-Libi was captured and sent to the high security U.S. prison in Bagram, Afghanistan. Three years later, he escaped, rejoining militants in the tribal regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

As recently as last year, al-Libi appeared in a video produced by As-Sahab, al Qaeda's media wing, urging Libyans to overthrow Gadhafi.

"The only solution for our country is Jihad for Islam", al-Libi said, praising the Arab Spring that toppled other Arab rulers.

"These revolutions have shown us that the Western governments only care about their own interests. They only speak out when they see them endangered. By now: the wind of revolution is blowing, and they evacuate their own citizens."

Other Sahab videos show al-Libi preaching to a group of militants in a mountainous region, wearing a tactical vest and reading from a script. Another shows clad in a black turban, preaching to an unidentified gathering indoors. The black flag of the Taliban is mounted on a wall behind him as he speaks.

Unlike videos of other Al Qaeda leaders that emphasize their role on the battlefield, most of al-Libi's videos appear to emphasize his role as a theologian, showing him preaching to groups of men and quoting extensively from the Quran.



</div></div>

His death has since been confirmed.

Sev
06-06-2012, 05:21 PM
Shouldn't you be congratulating the our men and woman in our fighting forces that executed the strike?

Soflasnapper
06-06-2012, 06:46 PM
These drones are being run by CIA guys in the states, not the fighting forces. It's not even military guys, but a joint CIA/Pentagon action, using CIA personnel.

Yes, we should thank them as well. However, the decision to more than double these drone flights and killing missions into Pakistan are the decisions and orders of the CIC, who certainly deserves that credit as well, accordingly.

Sev
06-06-2012, 06:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">These drones are being run by CIA guys in the states, not the fighting forces. It's not even military guys, but a joint CIA/Pentagon action, using CIA personnel.

Yes, we should thank them as well. However, the decision to more than double these drone flights and killing missions into Pakistan are the decisions and orders of the CIC, who certainly deserves that credit as well, accordingly. </div></div>

I didnt say he should not be applauded for the authorization.
However He is not doing the actual killing.

A shame we dont capture anybody anymore and gather intelligence from them.

He does have a hit list deck of cards though I hear.

Gayle in MD
06-06-2012, 06:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Shouldn't you be congratulating the our men and woman in our fighting forces that executed the strike?

</div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">....thanks to the Obama Administration's foreign policies, and our great CIA and their capabilities to keep our country safer.

</div></div>

I did thank those involved.

Gayle in MD
06-06-2012, 07:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">These drones are being run by CIA guys in the states, not the fighting forces. It's not even military guys, but a joint CIA/Pentagon action, using CIA personnel.

Yes, we should thank them as well. However, the decision to more than double these drone flights and killing missions into Pakistan are the decisions and orders of the CIC, who certainly deserves that credit as well, accordingly. </div></div>

I didnt say he should not be applauded for the authorization.
However He is not doing the actual killing.

A shame we dont capture anybody anymore and gather intelligence from them.

He does have a hit list deck of cards though I hear.

</div></div>

President Obama gained a virtual library of intelligence from his very successful, courageous decision, and the CIC, to give the order to our Special Forces to go into bin Laden's compound, and "Kill or capture" bin Laden.

Our wonderful, very well trained Navy Seals, very dedicated and courageous special forces, left that location with loads of intelligence, which also led to the latest successes in killing quite a number of terrorists, since, including this and very important latest success.

G.

Sev
06-06-2012, 07:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">These drones are being run by CIA guys in the states, not the fighting forces. It's not even military guys, but a joint CIA/Pentagon action, using CIA personnel.

Yes, we should thank them as well. However, the decision to more than double these drone flights and killing missions into Pakistan are the decisions and orders of the CIC, who certainly deserves that credit as well, accordingly. </div></div>

I didnt say he should not be applauded for the authorization.
However He is not doing the actual killing.

A shame we dont capture anybody anymore and gather intelligence from them.

He does have a hit list deck of cards though I hear.

</div></div>

President Obama gained a virtual library of intelligence from his very successful, courageous decision, and the CIC, to give the order to our Special Forces to go into bin Laden's compound, and "Kill or capture" bin Laden.

Our wonderful, very well trained Navy Seals, very dedicated and courageous special forces, left that location with loads of intelligence, which also led to the latest successes in killing quite a number of terrorists, since, including this and very important latest success.

G. </div></div>

There is a life expectancy to that data.
You need to continually update it. You cant do that if you are killing every enemy operative in the field.
Of Course that would mean using GITMO or a secret Saudi base.

We cant have that now can we?

Gayle in MD
06-06-2012, 08:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">These drones are being run by CIA guys in the states, not the fighting forces. It's not even military guys, but a joint CIA/Pentagon action, using CIA personnel.

Yes, we should thank them as well. However, the decision to more than double these drone flights and killing missions into Pakistan are the decisions and orders of the CIC, who certainly deserves that credit as well, accordingly. </div></div>

I didnt say he should not be applauded for the authorization.
However He is not doing the actual killing.

A shame we dont capture anybody anymore and gather intelligence from them.

He does have a hit list deck of cards though I hear.

</div></div>

President Obama gained a virtual library of intelligence from his very successful, courageous decision, and the CIC, to give the order to our Special Forces to go into bin Laden's compound, and "Kill or capture" bin Laden.

Our wonderful, very well trained Navy Seals, very dedicated and courageous special forces, left that location with loads of intelligence, which also led to the latest successes in killing quite a number of terrorists, since, including this and very important latest success.

G. </div></div>

There is a life expectancy to that data.
You need to continually update it. You cant do that if you are killing every enemy operative in the field.
Of Course that would mean using GITMO or a secret Saudi base.

We cant have that now can we? </div></div>

That's correct. We no long torture people. Additionally, we no longer launch unwinnable wars, against countries which are no threat to us.

We no longer waste trilions of dollars invading and occupying countries under false pretences, either.

To suggest that killing off major al Qaeda members, who are currently plotting to kill Americans here, or are leading others, who are plotting to kill us, is wrong, because it robs us of intelligence, is just too incredible for words.

We have plenty of ways of securing intelligence, without invasions, and without boots on the ground, or launching militarily unwinnable wars, and killing off thousands upon thousands of innocent people.

I'll just leave it right there.

G.

Sev
06-06-2012, 08:17 PM
If you know where they are so you can kill them. You can also capture them. And then they can not plot any further.

We dont torture anymore??? Laughable.
Secret CIA sites exist all over the world. And then there are the other agencies nobody knows about. If they dont do it then we use the Saudis.
Nothing has changed. GITMO is just window dressing.

Gayle in MD
06-06-2012, 08:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you know where they are so you can kill them. You can also capture them. And then they can not plot any further.

We dont torture anymore??? Laughable.
Secret CIA sites exist all over the world. And then there are the other agencies nobody knows about. If they dont do it then we use the Saudis.
Nothing has changed. GITMO is just window dressing. </div></div>

<span style="color: #CC0000">I have long watched the Republican method, tell the lie over and over and over, and eventually, people will buy it.

But see, I don't drink the Kool Aid...so it won't work on me.

NO, We do not torture prisoners any longer!

President Obama put an end to all torture.

G.</span>

eg8r
06-07-2012, 08:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We dont torture anymore??? Laughable. </div></div>Remember that is a Rep issue only. The Dems however are perfectly fine illegally entering another country to murder terrorists and using drones to kill Americans.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
06-07-2012, 09:05 AM
If you know where they are so you can kill them. You can also capture them. And then they can not plot any further.

We already violating sovereign countries' borders, which is hotly opposed and at least marginally if not wholly illegal, by air. It is far more difficult and dangerous to our forces to try to insert bodies into sovereign countries, and get out with those targets.

There is no value in exposing our troops to capture or death or torture, as these parties have no ability to make an attack here unless the FBI sets up their plots. As we've seen, over and over again. There is no intel to be gathered as to their failed alleged capabilities, which appear to be nil.

We dont torture anymore??? Laughable.

There WAS that executive order to that effect, signed by Obama on roughly day two or three of his term.

eg8r
06-07-2012, 09:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We already violating sovereign countries' borders, which is hotly opposed and at least marginally if not wholly illegal, by air.</div></div>Some looney lefties think this is OK now that it is a (D) in office. They feel we can just go where we want and kill whoever we want.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There WAS that executive order to that effect, signed by Obama on roughly day two or three of his term.</div></div>Surely you mention this only for the "technical" validity since your other recent posts would lead us to believe you would not find it beneath Obama to allow to continue.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am sure the government is willing to kill adversaries and lie about the reasons. If you think Obama is above that, which is naive in my view

</div></div>Based on this quote of yours, and the one I previously quoted, do you think Obama is will but not torture? Do you think there is a difference in the grand scheme of things? Are you admitting naivete on the torture front only?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-07-2012, 09:39 AM
LOL, some, whose paychecks are linked to out of sight spending, cronyism, corruption, no bids, and colossal waste by the Military Industrial Complex, and the DOD, and the Pentagon, much prefer loads of boots on the ground. and

Screw it if our troops end up bleeding all over the sands of the Middle East, and Africa. Those on the take from government contracts, don't mind any of it, but with all their whining about every single cent that might end up feeding a hungry American, they have no issue with the out of control DOD and Pentagon spending. They make their money of all of that wasted American blood, to using swift, carefully directed, successful use of technology, saving the country trillions, not to mention our soldiers lives, by using drones to kill terrorists, who want to kill Americans everywhere they can, instead of launching idiotic wars, and throwing the country into more Bush-style unpaid deficits on the national credit card.

More money is wasted by the DOD, and the Pentagon, than anywhere else in government, and it is the least exposed, of any other government waste.

G.

Soflasnapper
06-07-2012, 02:33 PM
Quote:
There WAS that executive order to that effect, signed by Obama on roughly day two or three of his term.
Surely you mention this only for the "technical" validity since your other recent posts would lead us to believe you would not find it beneath Obama to allow to continue.


He took away the immunities from those who would do that. That's the biggest deterrent. If they are subject to charges for that activity, they are far less prone to take the risk. He put in place the equivalent of the UCMJ orders for all US personnel.

My view is that any torture going on is outsourced. That's bad, when it occurs, but not US personnel.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We already violating sovereign countries' borders, which is hotly opposed and at least marginally if not wholly illegal, by air.
Some looney lefties think this is OK now that it is a (D) in office. They feel we can just go where we want and kill whoever we want. </div></div>

And the righties want to amp THAT up to include kidnapping inside other sovereign countries. As if that is ok as well. Killing by remote control from California airbases via satellite relay may be illegal under international law, but it exposes no US forces to danger. Just innocent foreign nationals to collateral damage death and maiming. Which the American people have long shown they care nothing about whatsoever.

eg8r
06-07-2012, 05:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He took away the immunities from those who would do that. That's the biggest deterrent. If they are subject to charges for that activity, they are far less prone to take the risk. He put in place the equivalent of the UCMJ orders for all US personnel.
</div></div>What the heck does that have to do with the price of wheat? You said this...<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am sure the government is willing to kill adversaries and lie about the reasons. If you think Obama is above that, which is naive in my view
</div></div>There is no immunity for this and you act as if it is not a detterant either. Both are the same...against the law yet those with a bit of common sense know they both continue under Obama's reign.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My view is that any torture going on is outsourced. </div></div>To think torture is not happening by Americans and only outsourced is naive in my view.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And the righties want to amp THAT up to include kidnapping inside other sovereign countries.</div></div>You act like kidnapping is a worse offense then actual murder. Are you out of your mind? Obama has already admitted to murder in sovereign nations.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Killing by remote control from California airbases via satellite relay may be illegal under international law, but it exposes no US forces to danger.</div></div>It is illegal by our very own laws when the person murdered is an American citizen. This isn't about what Reps think is OK or not because the discussion is about Obama so stick to the subject. We already know the Reps are willing to do what is needed to keep this country safe so the discussion is wrapped around the idiot Dems who have shown their partisanship by praising illegal actions against their own citizens and against the murder of someone (even if he deserved what he got) in a sovereign nation.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-08-2012, 04:43 AM
Who was the Amereican citizen?

G.

Sev
06-08-2012, 05:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you know where they are so you can kill them. You can also capture them. And then they can not plot any further.

We already violating sovereign countries' borders, which is hotly opposed and at least marginally if not wholly illegal, by air. It is far more difficult and dangerous to our forces to try to insert bodies into sovereign countries, and get out with those targets.

There is no value in exposing our troops to capture or death or torture, as these parties have no ability to make an attack here unless the FBI sets up their plots. As we've seen, over and over again. There is no intel to be gathered as to their failed alleged capabilities, which appear to be nil.

We dont torture anymore??? Laughable.

There WAS that executive order to that effect, signed by Obama on roughly day two or three of his term. </div></div>

Perhaps. However infiltration and extraction was always a primary role.

He did sign an executive order.
You really believe we dont have people in some undisclosed hole somewhere under inquisition? Either by us or the Saudi's.

We are executing all these people primarily because capturing them creates a problem and once they are in our custody they are basically useless to us.

Sev
06-08-2012, 06:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you know where they are so you can kill them. You can also capture them. And then they can not plot any further.

We dont torture anymore??? Laughable.
Secret CIA sites exist all over the world. And then there are the other agencies nobody knows about. If they dont do it then we use the Saudis.
Nothing has changed. GITMO is just window dressing. </div></div>

<span style="color: #CC0000">I have long watched the Republican method, tell the lie over and over and over, and eventually, people will buy it.

But see, I don't drink the Kool Aid...so it won't work on me.

NO, We do not torture prisoners any longer!

President Obama put an end to all torture.

G.</span> </div></div>

President Obama put and end to it???
Sure he did.
What happens to the people we give to the Saudi's to be "interviewed".
How would Obama know?
He was apparently "unaware" of the criminal activity of his own DOJ in Operation Fast and Furious.
How many Mexicans have died do that botched operation he was supposedly oblivious to?

Gayle in MD
06-08-2012, 06:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you know where they are so you can kill them. You can also capture them. And then they can not plot any further.

We already violating sovereign countries' borders, which is hotly opposed and at least marginally if not wholly illegal, by air. It is far more difficult and dangerous to our forces to try to insert bodies into sovereign countries, and get out with those targets.

There is no value in exposing our troops to capture or death or torture, as these parties have no ability to make an attack here unless the FBI sets up their plots. As we've seen, over and over again. There is no intel to be gathered as to their failed alleged capabilities, which appear to be nil.

We dont torture anymore??? Laughable.

There WAS that executive order to that effect, signed by Obama on roughly day two or three of his term. </div></div>

Perhaps. However infiltration and extraction was always a primary role.

He did sign an executive order.
You really believe we dont have people in some undisclosed hole somewhere under inquisition? Either by us or the Saudi's.

We are executing all these people primarily because capturing them creates a problem and once they are in our custody they are basically useless to us.
</div></div>

I thought you just said that we are losing intelligence, because we are killing them, when we should capture them for the possibility of getting intelligence from them?

Make up your mind!

G.

Gayle in MD
06-08-2012, 06:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you know where they are so you can kill them. You can also capture them. And then they can not plot any further.

We dont torture anymore??? Laughable.
Secret CIA sites exist all over the world. And then there are the other agencies nobody knows about. If they dont do it then we use the Saudis.
Nothing has changed. GITMO is just window dressing. </div></div>

<span style="color: #CC0000">I have long watched the Republican method, tell the lie over and over and over, and eventually, people will buy it.

But see, I don't drink the Kool Aid...so it won't work on me.

NO, We do not torture prisoners any longer!

President Obama put an end to all torture.

G.</span> </div></div>

President Obama put and end to it???
Sure he did.
What happens to the people we give to the Saudi's to be "interviewed".
How would Obama know?
He was apparently "unaware" of the criminal activity of his own DOJ in Operation Fast and Furious.
How many Mexicans have died do that botched operation he was supposedly oblivious to? </div></div>

When he ended torture, it was to include any other countries working with us, would agree, no torture.

G.

Sev
06-08-2012, 06:53 AM
HAHAHAHAHAAAHAHA!!!!

WOW!!!

eg8r
06-08-2012, 08:23 AM
Don't play dumb.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-08-2012, 09:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">HAHAHAHAHAAAHAHA!!!!

WOW!!! </div></div>

Yes, it must be hard for you to realize that there are people, like myself, and like President Obama, who believe that torture is wrong. His statements were very clear, America's prisoners of war, will not be tortured. Given the number of main al Qaeda and Taliban would be attackers we have killed since we got all of bin Laden's files, it's pretty obvious, we don't even NEED to torture people.

We've been killing al Qaeda leaders, and operatives, left and right for over a year now. Or haven't you noticed?


Additionally, we have more intelligence to work from than we've ever had, for a whole range of reasons, and improved current intelligence gathering operations, about which, I assume, you are not aware.

Did you want to correct your contradiction, by any chance, at this time?

You went from saying that prisoners are of no use to us once they are captured, after having said that we shouldn't kill them with drones, because we won't be getting enough Intelligence, if we don't take them prisoner?

G.

Soflasnapper
06-08-2012, 09:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> from me: He took away the immunities from those who would do that. That's the biggest deterrent. If they are subject to charges for that activity, they are far less prone to take the risk. He put in place the equivalent of the UCMJ orders for all US personnel.

There is no immunity for this [meaning, kill[ing] adversaries and [lying] about the reasons] and you act as if it is not a detterant either. Both are the same...against the law yet those with a bit of common sense know they both continue under Obama's reign. </div></div>

Actually, that is wrong. Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the government can and does kill people without consequence to the actors performing the deed. There were a hundred or more deaths of foreign nationals in US military custody the military said were homicides, and I know of no prosecutions. The guys who have been prosecuted were going on personal rampages.

You probably don't know how the formal torture justifications came about. They came after the fact, when then-head of the WH Office of Legal Counsel, Alberto Gonzales, wrote a memo stating that the actions already taken by then could be 'interpreted' by a different future incoming administration as felony violations of the War Crimes Act, subjecting the torturers and those ordering that torture, all the way up the chain of command, to prosecution and even capital punishment.

The military has always taken their obligations to operate within our treaty terms most seriously, as the UCMJ stipulates, and as the War Crimes Act (signed by Reagan) specifically criminalized in breach of those treaties.

It's similar to how the British military demanded an analysis from their equivalent of their Attorney General before they would agree to be involved in the Iraq war effort, fearing that action might be illegal under binding treaty law.

It was not until the 1,000 or so in custody at Gitmo were yielding poor intel results that Gen. Sanchez instituted the torture regimes upon DOD and administration order, after normal and legal interrogation methods were tried with disappointing results. Then they sent ("Dirty") Sanchez to Abu Ghraib to 'Gitmo-ize' the interrogations there, meaning what it sounds like, on thousands of prisoners there. We have never used systematic torture regimes on prisoners before those times.

You act like kidnapping is a worse offense then actual murder. Are you out of your mind? Obama has already admitted to murder in sovereign nations.

No, it's not worse, of course. It's much more dangerous to our personnel, and harder to have other countries' tacit allowance, should our personnel be captured in the act.

Murder is a technical term that does not apply to all homicides, and no, Obama has not admitted any murders.

Quote, me:
Killing by remote control from California airbases via satellite relay may be illegal under international law, but it exposes no US forces to danger.

You: It is illegal by our very own laws when the person murdered is an American citizen.

No, under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, it is not. If the president signs a 'finding,' it is not illegal under our laws. Because it is not murder, although it is killing. I'm not aware of even the ACLU attempting to get a murder charge on the killing of Awalawki (sp?), although they oppose the action, of course.

We already know the Reps are willing to do what is needed to keep this country safe so the discussion is wrapped around the idiot Dems who have shown their partisanship by praising illegal actions against their own citizens and against the murder of someone (even if he deserved what he got) in a sovereign nation.

Your partisanship is pathetic here. Willing to do what is needed to keep this country safe? (I threw up a little in my mouth over that one.) Their actions gravely endangered this country and our troops. It was the abuses of Abu Ghraib, once revealed, that was the single largest recruiting reason to put jihadis in the field against us, who then killed our forces and further made Iraq bleed. It reversed the standard George Washington set in place, and which has guided our treatment of prisoners in military custody ever since, besmirching the true honor of our military, who had never engaged in that activity before.

eg8r
06-08-2012, 04:03 PM
LOL, your defense cracks me up. It is murder. Paying to have someone killed is just as bad as doing it yourself.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-09-2012, 07:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, your defense cracks me up. It is murder. Paying to have someone killed is just as bad as doing it yourself.

eg8r </div></div>


WHEN BUSH DID IT?

Soflasnapper
06-09-2012, 11:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, your defense cracks me up. It is murder. Paying to have someone killed is just as bad as doing it yourself.

eg8r </div></div>

So in your view, Obama is guilty of murder, as a Mafia chieftain is if he orders the hit.

However, in the Mafia example, surely the hitman is ALSO guilty of murder as well (as he is the one actually doing it).

So do you think the US personnel who are the agents accomplishing what you claim is murder are absolved of their actual commission of 'murder,' or do you think everyone involved is also a murderer? If so, do you support a harsh punishment, including up to life imprisonment or the death penalty, for whichever CIA or military personnel were involved?

Pay attention here, as this is the classic reductio ad absurdum argument.

eg8r
06-10-2012, 01:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So in your view, Obama is guilty of murder, as a Mafia chieftain is if he orders the hit.

However, in the Mafia example, surely the hitman is ALSO guilty of murder as well (as he is the one actually doing it).

</div></div>What other sane view is there? The person being killed does not change the fact that the person paying for the hit is guilty. I have already admitted that Obama deserved what he got but that doesn't take away the fact that Obama paid the mercenaries. On top of that is also ordered drones to kill Americans. Murder plain and simple.

eg8r

eg8r
06-10-2012, 01:46 AM
I think you mean Clinton. Bush had full authority to do what he did.

eg8r

LWW
06-10-2012, 02:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So in your view, Obama is guilty of murder, as a Mafia chieftain is if he orders the hit.

However, in the Mafia example, surely the hitman is ALSO guilty of murder as well (as he is the one actually doing it).

</div></div>What other sane view is there? The person being killed does not change the fact that the person paying for the hit is guilty. I have already admitted that Obama deserved what he got but that doesn't take away the fact that Obama paid the mercenaries. On top of that is also ordered drones to kill Americans. Murder plain and simple.

eg8r </div></div>

Have you seen the data mining operations being conducted by the regime?

Our resident leftists went into sel flagellation fits at the idea that the Bush regime possibly wanted such data anonymously ... yet now it is being done specifically nd massively, and not a peep from our self proclaimed defender of t COTUS.

eg8r
06-10-2012, 07:07 AM
No I haven't but I did a big mistake in my previous post. I meant to say "I have already admitted that OSama deserved what he got but that doesn't take away the fact that Obama paid the mercenaries."

Sorry for the mistake. I was in full support of Obama going after Osama and killing him illegally in Pakistan. For our country it was the right thing to do. For the people who have lived through the pain of losing a loved one, friends and family in 9/11, it was the right thing to do. As far as our foreign relations with Pakistan, probably not the right thing to do. Having said all that, it still does not negate the fact that Obama had no right whatsoever sending our troops in to that country to kill Osama. I am just calling a spade a spade.

eg8r

LWW
06-10-2012, 08:31 AM
DATA MINING WHICH, ODDLY, NO LONGER OFFENDS LEFTIST SENSITIVITIES ... (http://www.newsroomamerica.com/story/253718/obama_campaign_launching_huge_data_mining_operatio n.html)

Soflasnapper
06-10-2012, 10:42 AM
Having said all that, it still does not negate the fact that Obama had no right whatsoever sending our troops in to that country to kill Osama.

Of course he had that right. It is Congressional authority, and the inherent right to self defense allowed under the UN General Charter as a righteous reason for military action. The inherent right to self defense reaches to wherever those people endangering us are, including the use of air strikes, or ground personnel, to take out the enemy threatening our security.

On what basis do you deny the above statements? That Congressional authorization doesn't make it legal in our system? That is what MAKES IT LEGAL in our system!

eg8r
06-10-2012, 04:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Of course he had that right. It is Congressional authority, and the inherent right to self defense</div></div>You are out of your mind if you think we had the right to invade a sovereign country to murder Osama.

Gayle in MD
06-11-2012, 08:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Of course he had that right. It is Congressional authority, and the inherent right to self defense</div></div>You are out of your mind if you think we had the right to invade a sovereign country to murder Osama. </div></div>

And you are out of your mind if you think that the Pakistani leaders, if you can call them leaders, didn't already know, full well, that if they were harboring bin Laden, and aiding him, and we learned that he was there, that this president had already told them, AND THE WORLD, that he would capture or kill bin Laden, where ever he was found, and that getting bin Laden was among his most important goals.

If Bush had had enough intellect and patriotism to accomplish it, you'd have been the first one on here giving him accolades.

I'm quite sure Bush didn't want to kill his own family's business partner's, brother, uncle, cousin, or son....

G.

Gayle in MD
06-11-2012, 08:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think you mean Clinton. Bush had full authority to do what he did.

eg8r </div></div>

No president has the authority to lie his country into war and into occupying another country, on lies.

G.

Soflasnapper
06-11-2012, 09:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Of course he had that right. It is Congressional authority, and the inherent right to self defense</div></div>You are out of your mind if you think we had the right to invade a sovereign country to murder Osama. </div></div>

No problem as to US law. He had the very broad grant of authority from the Congress from when we first engaged in Afghanistan under Bush. You say invade a sovereign country. That's exactly what we did in Afghanistan, except with scores of thousands of troops in the field, and directly to the point of getting bin Laden when he was there, as W said, wanted dead or alive. What is the difference? In the Pakistan example, we inserted a small force and then took them out of country within hours, and did not put thousands there for years.

As to international law, a) we do not subject ourselves to the World Court's jurisdiction (in Hague), and b) the Pakistani government (the only party with standing to legally object) does not REALLY object (they have to say they do to prevent the tribal areas from getting more out of hand). In fact, they cooperated with the operation, surrounding the compound a half hour or more before the arrival of our Seal team.

So you've simply taken what you've heard as true, without any reason to believe it is true. Do you have any basis that may have been left unsaid that this is true, or just your bare assertions?

eg8r
06-11-2012, 10:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No problem as to US law....As to international law</div></div>LOL, what a hypocritical garbage. I give you a pass because you did not join the lefty idiots on this board till much later, but your fellow lefty idiots did not have this same opinion of international law when W was running things. Mind you, they were perfectly fine when Clinton did it, but W was different. He had a (R).

eg8r

eg8r
06-11-2012, 10:57 AM
LOL, hello nutcase...sent all the way from England.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
06-11-2012, 12:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No problem as to US law....As to international law</div></div>LOL, what a hypocritical garbage. I give you a pass because you did not join the lefty idiots on this board till much later, but your fellow lefty idiots did not have this same opinion of international law when W was running things. Mind you, they were perfectly fine when Clinton did it, but W was different. He had a (R).

eg8r </div></div>

Interesting.

I mentioned long ago on this forum that the Kosovo war was based on lies concerning genocidal slaughters that were as false as the WMD claims, and that no one particularly said much about that. I opposed the Kosovo war before I knew the claims were false, in any case.

But tell me, when the LIs thought Bush was wrong, did you think he was right? That is, are you the same hypocrite on these two presidents you claim they are? (Just in reverse?)

If so, do you have no principles to guide you consistently, and only reverse course out of pique?

And actually, the Iraq misadventure debacle is easily distinguishable as to its legality. Yes, it was colorably legal by the Congressional AUMF action, under US law. However, it did not meet the UN General Charter standard of legitimate self-defense (he didn't attack us, threaten us, or threaten or attack any of our allies), nor was such an attack imminent, allowing for a pre-emptive attack (which is also legitimate and allowed). It was a PREVENTATIVE war action, and I refer you to what President Eisenhower said about that.

Bush's Afghanistan invasion is different, and that was more legitimate (still not really, and I opposed that war as well).

Gayle in MD
06-11-2012, 02:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, your defense cracks me up. It is murder. Paying to have someone killed is just as bad as doing it yourself.

eg8r </div></div>

The Bush administration paid all of those who were sent into Iraq to kill the wrong enemy.

Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time.

G.

Gayle in MD
06-11-2012, 02:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, hello nutcase...sent all the way from England.

eg8r </div></div>

Nutcase...sent more insults all the way from England.

Keep it up.

I see that you still have not made the connection between your bad Karma, and your non-stop disastrous circumstances on your trip.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Sev
06-11-2012, 04:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you know where they are so you can kill them. You can also capture them. And then they can not plot any further.

We already violating sovereign countries' borders, which is hotly opposed and at least marginally if not wholly illegal, by air. It is far more difficult and dangerous to our forces to try to insert bodies into sovereign countries, and get out with those targets.

There is no value in exposing our troops to capture or death or torture, as these parties have no ability to make an attack here unless the FBI sets up their plots. As we've seen, over and over again. There is no intel to be gathered as to their failed alleged capabilities, which appear to be nil.

We dont torture anymore??? Laughable.

There WAS that executive order to that effect, signed by Obama on roughly day two or three of his term. </div></div>

Perhaps. However infiltration and extraction was always a primary role.

He did sign an executive order.
You really believe we dont have people in some undisclosed hole somewhere under inquisition? Either by us or the Saudi's.

We are executing all these people primarily because capturing them creates a problem and once they are in our custody they are basically useless to us.
</div></div>

I thought you just said that we are losing intelligence, because we are killing them, when we should capture them for the possibility of getting intelligence from them?

Make up your mind!

G. </div></div>

I'm of 2 minds. I dont have to. They both stand on their own. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Sev
06-11-2012, 04:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">HAHAHAHAHAAAHAHA!!!!

WOW!!! </div></div>

Yes, it must be hard for you to realize that there are people, like myself, and like President Obama, who believe that torture is wrong. His statements were very clear, America's prisoners of war, will not be tortured. Given the number of main al Qaeda and Taliban would be attackers we have killed since we got all of bin Laden's files, it's pretty obvious, we don't even NEED to torture people.

We've been killing al Qaeda leaders, and operatives, left and right for over a year now. Or haven't you noticed?


Additionally, we have more intelligence to work from than we've ever had, for a whole range of reasons, and improved current intelligence gathering operations, about which, I assume, you are not aware.

Did you want to correct your contradiction, by any chance, at this time?

You went from saying that prisoners are of no use to us once they are captured, after having said that we shouldn't kill them with drones, because we won't be getting enough Intelligence, if we don't take them prisoner?

G. </div></div>

They are useless to us if they go to GITMO.
However if they are captured and not reported as such and then go to a secured installation in a foreign land that is a different matter.

By the way. Even with all the drone strikes over 60% of military deaths in Afghanistan have been on Obama's watch.

It would also seem that these surgical strikes are causing collateral damage to bystanders including children.
Everybody within the strike zone is considered a hostile.
Must be nice to have a kill list that works like that.

If you dont care about the civilians in the first place why not just pull back the troops and nuke the place and completely remove the problem in 1 move?

Didnt Johnson have a kill list?

Soflasnapper
06-11-2012, 06:22 PM
Didnt Johnson have a kill list?

No, the opposite, actually. He and his team BLOCKED proposed bombing strikes, for fear of Soviet or Chinese reactions.

ven with all the drone strikes over 60% of military deaths in Afghanistan have been on Obama's watch.

Well sure. We didn't have that many personnel in country, so we used cluster bombs, daisy cutters, A-10 Warthogs, and a huge amount of airpower, which risked no US forces, but which had a far greater civilian death toll.

As of the surge, we got up to 100,000 personnel in country, and started doing ground patrols and combat a lot more. The drone strikes have about 15% unintended civilian casualties, a far lower rate than the use of cluster bombs or those very powerful gunships, or the white phosphorus we used there.

Gayle in MD
06-11-2012, 10:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">HAHAHAHAHAAAHAHA!!!!

WOW!!! </div></div>

Yes, it must be hard for you to realize that there are people, like myself, and like President Obama, who believe that torture is wrong. His statements were very clear, America's prisoners of war, will not be tortured. Given the number of main al Qaeda and Taliban would be attackers we have killed since we got all of bin Laden's files, it's pretty obvious, we don't even NEED to torture people.

We've been killing al Qaeda leaders, and operatives, left and right for over a year now. Or haven't you noticed?


Additionally, we have more intelligence to work from than we've ever had, for a whole range of reasons, and improved current intelligence gathering operations, about which, I assume, you are not aware.

Did you want to correct your contradiction, by any chance, at this time?

You went from saying that prisoners are of no use to us once they are captured, after having said that we shouldn't kill them with drones, because we won't be getting enough Intelligence, if we don't take them prisoner?

G. </div></div>

They are useless to us if they go to GITMO.
However if they are captured and not reported as such and then go to a secured installation in a foreign land that is a different matter.

By the way. Even with all the drone strikes over 60% of military deaths in Afghanistan have been on Obama's watch.

It would also seem that these surgical strikes are causing collateral damage to bystanders including children.
Everybody within the strike zone is considered a hostile.
Must be nice to have a kill list that works like that.

If you dont care about the civilians in the first place why not just pull back the troops and nuke the place and completely remove the problem in 1 move?

Didnt Johnson have a kill list?

</div></div>

Truth be told, we could banter about various presidents, and how we feel about each one of them, what they knew, what they did, and how successful they were, till hell freezes over. We would probably never agree about most of it.

One thing will never change, is that Bush demonstrated specific policy failure, in that he had specific strategic warnings from the CIA of an impending attack, from the momennt he stepped into the Oval Office. Eight months, before 9/11, he hhad been specifically warned about that coming attack.

He ignored all of it for eight months. Some connected to the CIA were being blocked from meetings they had requested since he first took office.

In August of 2001, when the CIA wrote another memo about al Qaeda's intention to attack inside the United States, specifically, with a specific reference to NEW YORK CITY, in THAT MEMO, he STILL did absolutely NOTHING to prevent the attack!

In my view, that was the single most incompetent, negligent failure of any president in our history, to act to protect this country, on such specific intelligence of a coming attack, including a warning that the threat was growing, and where and how it would likely be done, that I know of for certain.

To have followed that failure up with the irrational decisions Bush made after THAT, was beyond incompetent. Beyond negligent. AND, in my view, Iraq was all about money FOR Bush and cheney's former corporate interests. There is no question, at all, that they lied us into that war, and turned their efforts away from getting bin Laden, and smashing al Qaeda.

In my view, none of the propaganda the Bush Administration tried to use to cover up their failures, including trying to block the 9/11 inestigation, an investigation into how they could have known so much, been wo warned, and yet ignored all of the warnings, never ultimately revealed the entire scope of their agenda, nor the scope of their irresponsibility.

They never fooled the people in this country who really do make the effort to be informed, those who do read books, watch documentaries, go to lectures, and research everything that is available to us as citizens.

IMO, the same could be said about yet another, equally damaging, ultimate failure of the Bush Administration, which was the eventual total collapse, of the economy. Again, after unprecedented warnings, all of which, AGAIN were ignored.

Republicans were in power, for most of the Bush Administration.

Republicans have one hellova nerve to follow all of THAT up by using obstructionist tactics, for political purposes, to slow down the recovery, and worse, have the gall to express impatience that this president has not been able to get everything booming again, quickly enough to suit them, after years of their own incompetence, corruption, and negligence.

I do not believe that all of this was a result of happenstance!
From the failure to act in time to prevent 9/11, the mistaken and irrational invasion of Iraq, to the incompetence that led to the economic failure!


Follow the money!

G.

eg8r
06-12-2012, 04:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But tell me, when the LIs thought Bush was wrong, did you think he was right? </div></div>Well we are talking about going into a country with no authorization. Bush had the authorization so what point are you trying to make? Clinton did not and neither did Obama.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-12-2012, 06:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But tell me, when the LIs thought Bush was wrong, did you think he was right? </div></div>Well we are talking about going into a country with no authorization. Bush had the authorization so what point are you trying to make? Clinton did not and neither did Obama.

eg8r </div></div>

Bush did not have thhe authorization to cherry pick intelligence, in order to lie this country into an illegal, immoral invasion of a country which was no threat to our country at all, even lying about WMD, that he KNEW were not even there when he invaded.

Everyone in the field of intelligence, TOLD him, Saddam was not a threat.

Many of those experts wrote books exposing the illegal, incompetent, corrupt process used by Bush, Cheney, and Rice, in the run up to that illegal invasion.

We hvae the lies, on tape. We have the books. We have the UK memo: "The administration is fixing intelligence to their policy"

We have Colin Powell, after the fact, admitting that his performance, lying to the U.N., will forever be a black mark on his career. We saw testimony after testimony, during the Bush administration, where all we heard from Bush's crooks, was their taking the fifth amendment, incredible statements of "I dont recall" over a hundred time, AND refusals to even show up, or be sworn in, in order to escape their own law breaking. Gonzo's "I don't recall" over a hundred and fifty times?

Roves little Christian girl, taking the fifth, over and over!

It is incredible that you are still in denial regarding the lies and obvious corruption of the Bush Administration, as much as you also deny the responsibility and economic disaster that his lies created for our country, a result of GWB blowing trillions on a war that should never have happened, AND actually played right into the hands of our enemies, and indirectly filled up the pockets of the Cheney and Bush families, using no bid contracts to fill the pockets of their corporate cronies, on the blood of our troops, who were sent out to be blown up on the same roads, day after day, without even proper equipment to avoid unprecedented brain injuries, and no decent helmets, searching for metal scrapes in trash cans, because Rumsfeld decided to fight a war on a shoe string.

Mission Accomplished, about a war that would rage on for another six years!

Five former Ssecretaries of State from BOTH parties, stated it was the worst foreign policy decision in history!

DUH!

G.

eg8r
06-12-2012, 08:47 AM
Rant away granny. When you want to talk about the subject let us know.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-12-2012, 08:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Bush did not have the authorization to cherry pick intelligence, in order to lie this country into an illegal, immoral invasion of a country which was no threat to our country at all, even lying about WMD, that he KNEW were not even there when he invaded.

Everyone in the field of intelligence, TOLD him, Saddam was not a threat.

</div></div>

The fact is, you cannot debate because you refuse to acknowledge the facts.

G.

eg8r
06-12-2012, 09:53 AM
When you want to discuss the subject let me know.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-12-2012, 10:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When you want to discuss the subject let me know.

eg8r </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Bush did not have the authorization to cherry pick intelligence, in order to lie this country into an illegal, immoral invasion of a country which was no threat to our country at all, even lying about WMD, that he KNEW were not even there when he invaded.

Everyone in the field of intelligence, TOLD him, Saddam was not a threat.



</div></div>

I was discussing the subject just as it had evolved in the thread....

G.