Well, it's obviously not part of the secret contingency planning. Who knows what the secret part is? But: Get ready for the drones. We can and will take you out as you sleep in your bed at night. That's a message we're choosing to put out there.
CIA targeting officers normally assemble bits of intelligence — including agent reports, cellphone intercepts, video footage, public records, tips from foreign spy services — to create folders known as "targeting packages," for a variety of reasons....
Identifying possible threats in Syria would be "a logical step if the policy community sends a signal that, 'Hey, you guys might want to think about how you would respond to a possible request for plans about how you would thin the herd of the future insurgency,'" said a former CIA officer with experience in the Middle East.
पोस्ट्स
८९ टिप्पण्या:
Are we at war with Syria? Have we declared war on Syria? WTF?
Is this just the policy now, or what?
And we're supposed to believe that drone strikes are just like any other battle-field tactic?
It's assassination. When Clinton was president he failed to order the assassination of Bin Laden because, for some reason, we USED TO think that assassination was WRONG.
At the very least we were ashamed about doing it and tried not to get caught.
I prefer to defer to Fred Reed's analysis of the underlying problem of "high tech, precisely targeted warfare."
Two problems.
1. You create a lot of hatred with this long distance killing.
2. The recourse to long distance, high tech killing means that your troops lack the reason to do the killing close up.
In other words, it's an admission of weakness and an inability to sell the war to the electorate.
Has the Nobel committee ever revoked a prize?
Using drones as just another weapon on the field of battle is one thing (and I would consider the Afghanistan/Pakistan border as a field of battle, as do both the local govs.)
But using drones right & left in non-battle situations because we don't want American boots or casualties on the ground is going to become a major log on the pile of Why They Hate Us.
We need a few more filibusters on this matter, I'm afraid.
Synova, Assassination is illegal due to Executive Order 1233, by Ronald Reagan.
But, I don't think Al Qaeda attains the status of political organization, and so the order does not apply. So, Obama (and Bush) get to skate on the many assassinations of Al Qaeda dignitaries, though we are not at war with Al Qaeda.
The constitution isn't set up to deal with homeless government organizations like Al Qaeda intent on killing people and disrupting Western Civilization.
"In other words, it's an admission of weakness and an inability to sell the war to the electorate."
This.
Not that I, not even for a moment, think that there is virtue in getting our soldier's killed for no reason other than moral superiority, but killing from a distance requires greater moral care, but in real life, often means killing with less moral care.
Like Bosnia.
There was no way that the electorate would have voted to go to war in Bosnia, or the Congress would have voted to go to war in Bosnia so Clinton sold it as risk-free... drop some bombs... not a single American would die.
Since the Air Force is my service this bothers me. I was never an officer but I was in ROTC and took part in the conversations where young men and women talked about the remote nature and pure scale of death, often in terms of... would you turn that key? We were training to *be* the missile launch operators, the bomber pilots... didn't have drones then, but they put enlisted guys in charge of drones.
And it always comes down to that you've got to trust the person giving the order.
But how can we trust the person giving the order to kill at a distance like that when it's just too easy and holds NO political risk?
If Al Qeada isn't a political organization, what else could it possibly be? ALL it is, is a political organization.
(I'm not sure why that's significant to the question, unless the definition of "assassination" has to do with who is killed instead of a State doing the killing.)
This drone tactic seems so easy when only one party can really do it.
If someone starts sending drones here, I'll bet the tune changes very quickly.
I'm with Synova.
And a serious question, especially for our vets,
If our Little Zero is trying to invent reasons for drone strikes where we have no interest or dog in the fight, at what point do we start worrying whether he's a little kill crazy?
It's assassination. When Clinton was president he failed to order the assassination of Bin Laden because, for some reason, we USED TO think that assassination was WRONG.
At the very least we were ashamed about doing it and tried not to get caught.
was Osama bin laden a foreign leader? We should have felt ashamed taking out Osama bin laden if we could have?
We tried taking out Qaddafi back in the day and instead killed his sons. And he was the leader of a country.
(I should say this was Cold War and "turning the key" meant mutually assured destruction, or something like that. This is why I don't believe, not for a single moment, any ROTC "conscientious objector" who went through college without ever realizing they were training for war or what that meant. It's not possible.)
Go get 'em.
Sorry, that should have said
"Killed his daughter". And that was done back in 86 by Reagan.
What Synova said, right out of the gate.
What the hell is going on with the US Govt. The one that people USED to admire, world-wide, for its stand on freedom and law?
"Is this just the policy now, or what?"
Yes, it is. America has decided that we do not need to abide by any domestic or international laws or rules of behavior in pursuit of our agenda, whatever it may be or require at any time.
This is the beauty (from the point of view of the criminals who head our government) of the fabricated
"war on terror": it justifies anything we do, anywhere, inside or outside of our borders.
What the hell is the connection between Syrian rebels and 9/11?
Granted... it's the job of the military and probably the CIA, too, to "have a plan to kill everyone you meet," to have a plan for nuking Europe into a wasteland, etc., and that doesn't necessarily *mean* anything because war-gaming weird stuff like an invasion of Canada or the zombie apocalypse is part of the job.
But this doesn't seem like that sort of contingency planning... and what is it doing as an article in a newspaper?
Dante,
But, I don't think Al Qaeda attains the status of political organization, and so the order does not apply. So, Obama (and Bush) get to skate on the many assassinations of Al Qaeda dignitaries, though we are not at war with Al Qaeda.
Of course we're at war with al Qaeda; al Qaeda declared war on us. The difficulty is that "Islamic extremists" isn't synonymous with al Qaeda. There an awful lot of "Islamic extremists" who have zero to do with al Qaeda, starting with the Iranian leadership; and there are doubtless innumerable Sunnis who might fairly be described as "extremist" but also have nothing to do with al Qaeda.
If we are asserting a right to off any random "Islamic extremist" anywhere, that's unbelievably disturbing. (And, FWIW, the "Islamic extremists" in Syria are pretty much all on the rebel side, just as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was on the anti-Mubarak side.)
Has anyone at all in the Administration thought this through? Anyone?
And, Cookie, the beauty of trotting out a black Democratic president, is that all opposition ceases.
Next up, a Democratic female president, then a Democratic gay president!
I figure dissent will be the highest form of patriotism again in about 2036.
Dante,
But, I don't think Al Qaeda attains the status of political organization, and so the order does not apply. So, Obama (and Bush) get to skate on the many assassinations of Al Qaeda dignitaries, though we are not at war with Al Qaeda.
Of course we're at war with al Qaeda; al Qaeda declared war on us. The difficulty is that "Islamic extremists" isn't synonymous with al Qaeda. There an awful lot of "Islamic extremists" who have zero to do with al Qaeda, starting with the Iranian leadership; and there are doubtless innumerable Sunnis who might fairly be described as "extremist" but also have nothing to do with al Qaeda.
If we are asserting a right to off any random "Islamic extremist" anywhere, that's unbelievably disturbing. (And, FWIW, the "Islamic extremists" in Syria are pretty much all on the rebel side, just as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was on the anti-Mubarak side.)
Has anyone at all in the Administration thought this through? Anyone?
jr565 said...
It's assassination. When Clinton was president he failed to order the assassination of Bin Laden because, for some reason, we USED TO think that assassination was WRONG.
At the very least we were ashamed about doing it and tried not to get caught.
No, he just didn't have sufficient sand in his craw to do it.
Raping and beating up women is his thang, don't forget.
Barry does it because he's used to talking tough when he's got Solly an' da boys behind him. He thinks nothing can happen to him.
Robert Cook said...
Is this just the policy now, or what?
Yes, it is. America has decided that we do not need to abide by any domestic or international laws or rules of behavior in pursuit of our agenda, whatever it may be or require at any time.
Funny how we never hear peep one out of Cook or any of his friends when the guys are doing it in name of Glorious World Socialist Revolution or jihad.
"Islamic extremists" in Syria are pretty much all on the rebel side
"Islamic extremists" are on the side of Islamic extremism - no other side. Like the Bolsheviks they may make ad hoc partnerships, but they will deal with those "partners" in their own fashion when the time comes.
Why do we care about Syria anyway?
Why are we taking sides as the scorpions fight in the bottle?
Let them kill each other. And if any of them are threats to peace let the Israeli's take them out. They are a lot better at that then we are.
I think a lot of traffic analysis makes the targeting pretty good.
Letting the enemy know you have drones and are willing to use them is a tiny bit like terrorism isn't it?
Obama is out of control. If he were a Republican there would be not stop demands for hearings and impeachment and who knows what with the drumbeat never stopping in the mainstream media.
But now. Crickets.
Waddayagonnado?
"And, Cookie, the beauty of trotting out a black Democratic president, is that all opposition ceases."
Yes.
If he were a Republican there would be not stop demands for hearings and impeachment and who knows what with the drumbeatblah blah blah.
You guys are turning the GOP into the VICTIM party. I don't wanna hear any more shit about other people playing victim from Republicans. Clean up your own ridiculous neediness.
"Funny how we never hear peep one out of Cook or any of his friends when the guys are doing it in name of Glorious World Socialist Revolution or jihad."
What, pray tell, are you talking about?
Syria is in sad shape, and none of it can be credibly blamed on Israel or the US. This presents a huge challenge for Islamic extremists, but I'm confident they will find the resources to overcome this hurdle. If we do nothing, they will blame us for doing nothing, for standing by while Assad's forces butchered the populace. Our most callous act of cowardice since Rwanda. If, on the other hand, we pick some rebel faction that doesn't hate us quite as much as the other rebel factions, they will accuse us of subverting their pure, beautiful revolution for our own ends......Since this will all end up being America's fault anyway, I recommend doing nothing. It will all end badly no matter what we do, but doing nothing seems the cheapest, safest option available.
Phx wrote:
You guys are turning the GOP into the VICTIM party. I don't wanna hear any more shit about other people playing victim from Republicans. Clean up your own ridiculous neediness.
Why should we clean up anything? We should we hold our leaders to account for anything? When we can just act like the left and ignore all things that are inconvient our leaders do.
And by the way PHX, since when does pointing out dem hypocricy mean that we are victims?
Obama really enjoys this killing people via video game stuff and needs fresh fodder. Syria seems like an especially bad place to be sending drones, or anything else, though.
when does pointing out dem hypocricy mean that we are victims?
When you're pointing out the hypocrisy of the left.
Why should we clean up anything?
You should clean this shit up because your party is very often, and rightly, calling out citizens who act like victims who can't take the responsibility for themselves. But, as represented by Baron Zero's whining comment, and dozens more of them every day on Althouse, there's nothing more than some Republicans love than to bleat about how unfairly they are treated and how everyone has it in for you.
Show some principle. If you're going to tell people they need to take responsibility for themselves, quit whining, and get out there and make something of yourselves then take the same damn medicine.
As revenant might say, I got that off my chest so now it's back to being my usually amiable self.
Phx wrote:
You should clean this shit up because your party is very often, and rightly, calling out citizens who act like victims who can't take the responsibility for themselves. But, as represented by Baron Zero's whining comment, and dozens more of them every day on Althouse, there's nothing more than some Republicans love than to bleat about how unfairly they are treated and how everyone has it in for you.
Show some principle. If you're going to tell people they need to take responsibility for themselves, quit whining, and get out there and make something of yourselves then take the same damn medicine.
It was a rhetorical question. I'm asking why shoudln't we act like YOU?
When you're pointing out the hypocrisy of the left.
Keep on doing what you're doing. I've said it all along, it's not the principles of conservatism that's hurt the GOP, it's the sorry state of the rank and file. The leadership is held hostage by clowns.
I wasn't saying to actually act like you. But it seems to work for your side to be utterly and completly without principle. So, why not behave the same.
I'm asking why shoudln't we act like YOU?
You don't know anything about me.
It is not whining to point out that Obama is getting a free ride. It is a fact. He is doing something everyday that would get a Repubican impeached.
That is why you are freaking out. Because you want to yell squirrel and take the eyes away from what your boy is doing.
Oh and one other amiable aside.
Fuck you.
@jr565 Another winning campaign theme: "Not really any worse than the Democrats. So there."
v-i-c-t-i-m-o-l-o-g-y
you want to yell squirrel
And another thing. If anyone says this stupid fucking cliche ONE MORE TIME I'm going to shoot another hostage.
Show some principle. If you're going to tell people they need to take responsibility for themselves, quit whining, and get out there and make something of yourselves then take the same damn medicine.
That would be really nice PHX if on these boards you were once critical of OBama. Yet, I or we should somehow take responsibility for our actions. I AGREE that we should Why don't you? Where is all the speaking truth to power gone? Your side does't seem to big on taking your own medicine.
It took Rand Paul to highlight drone attacks. If it were Bush we'd have nightly newscasts about the evils of drone strikes.
Because. You. And. Your. Side. Are. A. Bunch. Of. Hypocrites.
Now go f off.
@jr565 Another winning campaign theme: "Not really any worse than the Democrats. So there."
is it possible to be worse than democrats and even more so, liberals?
That would be really tough.
That would be really nice PHX if on these boards you were once critical of OBama.
Oh here we go with THIS stupid fucking fallacy again. You are no longer able to argue with me until you can tell me what the name of this informal fallacy of logic is. Do you understand me? I'm so tired of stupid from you I could just cry.
Phx wrote:
Keep on doing what you're doing. I've said it all along, it's not the principles of conservatism that's hurt the GOP, it's the sorry state of the rank and file. The leadership is held hostage by clowns.
So you think there is no hypocricy on the left worth pointing out? Don't you find it kind of odd at the amount of speaking truth to power over certain issues, that no longer became issues once Obama was in power? That anger over Bush's EVIL terrorist policies were utterances on your side, not mine. And the president himself was one of the critics. And rode all that moral outrage all the way to the white house and now.... largely continues the same policies.
I guess I'm just expecting the same policies to elicit the same outrage. If not then I wonder, was that outrage fabricated to begin with?
Keep on doing what you're doing. I've said it all along, it's not the principles of conservatism that's hurt the GOP, it's the sorry state of the rank and file.
What would you know about principles, although I'm sure you're an expert on sorry states?
"I've said it all along, it's not the principles of conservatism that's hurt the GOP, it's the sorry state of the rank and file. The leadership is held hostage by clowns."
Isn't this another way of saying that the GOP leadership would be more like Democrats, and thus acceptable, if only they weren't held hostage by clowns?
I'm a bit tired of the whole "RINO neener-neener" thing, but really what do you think that the "principles of conservatism" are?
I was in 10th grade, I think, and asked several different adults what the difference was between the Republicans and the Democrats (after all, it didn't make sense to simply be a Republican because that's what my parents were) and no one could tell me. To my young mind there being no discernible difference between the parties was a problem. Is there really only one way to think about the role of government and no more to it than me cheering for my school against our rivals, the next school over?
We don't really need two Democrat parties.
phx wrote:
Keep on doing what you're doing. I've said it all along, it's not the principles of conservatism that's hurt the GOP, it's the sorry state of the rank and file. The leadership is held hostage by clowns.
Your side has no principles. If you did, then you'd be critics of Obama the way you were of Bush. Since you're not though don't lecture my side about not standing by principle.That woudl be like a sociopathic murderer telling someone who burped that they had bad manners.
"I guess I'm just expecting the same policies to elicit the same outrage. If not then I wonder, was that outrage fabricated to begin with?"
Of course it was fabricated.
Is that a trick question or what?
At least, as several people have pointed out, Cook gets credit for being consistent. The rest of the anti-war crowd just melted away as if none of it mattered, or even decided that anti-war meant so little that the best thing to do was to "discover" hypocrisy in any of the "hawks" who dared to consider that maybe, just *maybe*, we shouldn't go to war in Libya.
Or Syria.
LEts remember what got PHX's goat. the accusation that dems were hypocrites and if it were Bush they would be asking for hearing and what not to which PHx responded:
You guys are turning the GOP into the VICTIM party. I don't wanna hear any more shit about other people playing victim from Republicans. Clean up your own ridiculous neediness.
So, to point out democratic hypocricy and be critical of Obama is in fact playing the victim.How is that neediness on republicans part.
We don't NEED your side to have some integrity. We are just pointing out that your side doesn't have any. That doesn't make our side victims, it makes your side assholes.
Kapiche?
Synova wrote:
At least, as several people have pointed out, Cook gets credit for being consistent. The rest of the anti-war crowd just melted away as if none of it mattered, or even decided that anti-war meant so little that the best thing to do was to "discover" hypocrisy in any of the "hawks" who dared to consider that maybe, just *maybe*, we shouldn't go to war in Libya.
Or as PHX would say "I'm so tired of you repubs playing the victim".
Robert Cook is the only true "liberal" on these boards. The rest of them (garage,phx,Ritmo) really are just rooting for the laundry. Of course they want to tax and spend and control how your kids are indoctrinated in school and drive religion out of the public square. But they are flexible about killing towel heads because they never gave a shit about them in the first place.
Their problems with the Patriot Act and the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were just a club to beat Bush with. It means nothing to them in the real world.
See Fen's law.
Synova wrote:
Is that a trick question or what?
At least, as several people have pointed out, Cook gets credit for being consistent.
I will agree on Cook. I disagree with his position, but at least he holds to it.
and the ironic thing is that I'm actually, since I supported Bush on his war on terror policies,also a supporter of Obama's terror policies.
IF you'll note PHX, You asshole, I actually held Rand Paul to task for trying to turn a war on terror into a domestic police action and I thought that was a bad idea. And I also suggested he was arguing a straw man.
So, that's me sticking to principle. I'm merely pointing out that your side doesn't and hasn't and wont. Until the next republican president comes into office. Then you're going to duest off all the speaking truth to power signs that are sitting in your closet (collective you, not your specific closet)and march as if anti terror policies are something you just heard of and are outraged about.
Baron Zemo wrote:
heir problems with the Patriot Act and the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were just a club to beat Bush with. It means nothing to them in the real world.
Exactly right.
I was anti Patriot Act from the start, though pro-Iraq and Afghanistan, at least when we had an articulated ideological goal (if not a well articulated material goal.)
And anti-drone strike when it was Bush, too, though that didn't get to be a "thing" until the very end of his terms. I was worried about violating the sovereignty of Pakistan.
Robert Cook said...
Responding to: "Is this just the policy now, or what?"
Yes, it is. America has decided that we do not need to abide by any domestic or international laws or rules of behavior in pursuit of our agenda, whatever it may be or require at any time.
JUst the policy now? A little history here, deja vu is...
John Brennan's CIA [previously his White House office] circa 2012-2013 ...
We can and will take you out as you sleep in your bed at night.
Robert Komer's CORDS project under LBJ, circa 1967, and the Phoenix Program where an oh dark thirty *visit* to your house began with...
"April Fool, motherfucker."
Through our elected representatives in the Administration and the Senate, we, you and me, all of us, now own this work by virtue of making Brennan DCIA.
Nothing amuses me more, in a morbid way, than Democrats and Liberals who sanctimoniously allege they are the anti-violence & human rights crowd...when they are and always have been the purveyors of violence & denial of rights above and beyond the ordinary.
Peace Out, bitches.
Fen's Law: "The Left doesn't really believe in the things they lecture the rest of us about"
And "homeland security" gave me the same freakish ideological whiplash as "new world order."
Dear freaking dog.
You'd think that someone would have the native common sense to at least call it something else.
"Homeland Security" is way creepy.
There is a new character on "The Mentalist" who is supposed to be from "Homeland Security" and you just know that he is a serial killer in league with "Red John."
Also on "Person of Interest" the governmental agency that is tracking John and Harold is from "Homeland Security" and is trying to have them killed.
Finally the people at "Homeland Security" are coming to Sesame Street to try and arrest Bert and have him deported so Bert and Ernie can not get gay-puppet-married.
Bigots.
I just wish that "Homeland Security" would look into the Kardashians.
They have to be a threat to our homeland don't ya think?
We are now in a total fantasy world where we can print as much money as we want to to create perpetual prosperity and kill anyone anywhere at any time.
I picked up a little Taschen biography of Norman Rockwell recently. It is amazing to look at all of his patriotic paintings from the 1940s. Totally un-ironic worshipful paintings of Washington and all sorts of common people pitching in for freedom and democracy.
Can anyone think of any current day artistic depiction of, say, children saluting the flag, soldiers in the field, workers in the factories, or former great presidents?
No.
The mere thought is risible.
Real world question: If the United States had credible intelligence that Assad was about to launch a mustard gas offensive that would kill thousands, would it be permissible to use a drone attack against him? Another question: if we felt that the possibility of a drone attack would inhibit Assad from such measures, should we bruit it about?....I'm convinced that anything we do will be interpreted in the worst possible light, but is that really an excuse to do nothing.
Someone who accuses the other side of "whining" (phx, 2:59pm) should probably wait more than 14 minutes before writing something like "I'm so tired of [x] I could just cry" (phx, 3:13pm). It makes him look like a whiny little titty baby, a shameless hypocrite, and a fool.
Of course, phx's comments on this thread are a textbook case of a standard lefty method. When engaged in a metaphorical boxing match, make sure that you bribe the ref, and then starting punching below the belt. If your opponent does the same, demand that he be disqualified: the bribed ref will be glad to oblige. If your opponent complains that you are punching below the belt, call him a whiner and keep on punching. If he keeps on fighting without complaining, punch further below the belt and more frequently. Even a boxer who is totally outclassed in actual boxing skills can win this way.
Synova wrote:
And anti-drone strike when it was Bush, too, though that didn't get to be a "thing" until the very end of his terms. I was worried about violating the sovereignty of Pakistan.
That was one of the worries of John Mccain too back when he was running. And back when lefties really cared about such matters, invading the sovereign space of another country, especially one that never actually attacked us, was a big no no.
I think we had some latitude with Pakistan who was OSTENSIBLY our ally, but the premise was we weren't going to do it without tacit approval.
Obama blustered in and said he would do it (get Osama bin Laden in Pakistan) without the approval of Pakistan and Mccain followed with:
“The first thing you do is, you don’t tell people what you’re gonna to do. You make plans and you work with the other country that is your ally and friend, which Pakistan is.”
I think that obama's flaw was that he telegraphed our action to the world, that we would deliberately violate Pakistani territory objective, and what Mccain was saying is, you don't say that to our allies. That's something you do behind the scenes, with your allies.
BUT, it points out that sometimes you have to go into other countries and take out some terrorists, whether you get permission or not.
ANd he's demonstrated this in Libya, and now in Syria. It doesn't always hold that it's a good idea to do so, but if we're at war with Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda is in a country and that country doesn't cooperate with us, how else are we supposed to get them? Will it increase enmity towards us around the world? Absolutely.
Also, if we're going to do this in Syria, why not Iran?
One thing, the libs can NEVER EVER EVER argue again that we can't attack countries that can't attack us or can only attack them in self defense when the attack is imminent. Or that the war powers act means anything.
In fact, lets just cross off everly liberal talking point (except about waterboarding because DAMN IT, there they are moral) and stick a fork in it. Because they're done.
And hallelujah for that.
THough of course we know that the statute of limitations on pro war policies will be for three more years. Unless of course Hillary takes over. THen it will be at least four more years of same.
As a neocon I suppose I should rejoice. I get to see regimes get toppled, drone policies enhanced, and my enemies on the left hoisted on their own petard because of their own lack of words.
The left is now as neo conish as me. Yes, its out of lack of interest, and hypocricy. But who cares. They are advoactors of war crimes. The lefties! it's glorious to watch the immolation.
Robert Cook said...
Funny how we never hear peep one out of Cook or any of his friends when the guys are doing it in name of Glorious World Socialist Revolution or jihad.
What, pray tell, are you talking about?
There's a difference between playing dumb and playing stupid.
But, since I included the relevant piece of your quote, I'll do it again - do not need to abide by any domestic or international laws or rules of behavior in pursuit of our agenda, whatever it may be or require at any time.
Ring any bells?
Synova said...
I've said it all along, it's not the principles of conservatism that's hurt the GOP, it's the sorry state of the rank and file. The leadership is held hostage by clowns.
Isn't this another way of saying that the GOP leadership would be more like Democrats, and thus acceptable, if only they weren't held hostage by clowns?
This was the justification the Soviets used for putting dissidents in mental hospitals.
There must be something wrong with them if they don't like living People's Paradise.
Funny how you scratch a "Liberal" and you find Lavrenti Beria.
No, Edutcher, I still don't know what you're on about.
Al Qaeda is kind of like the IRA or the Black Panthers. Anyone who says he is one, is one. Also anyone that anyone connected to the U.S. Gov't says is one, is one.
And they do not have to "send" drones here. They can buy them at at Toys-R-Us, a little tinkering, and, voila!
Riiiight.
Cookie kind of reminds me of a kid I would argue politics with back in high school. He was an ardent socialist and Labour Party supporter, but said that if the Labour Party ever wavered on socialism, he would become a Communist.
Wonder how he is doing (if he is still alive) now that the Norwegian Labour Party has officially abandoned socialism and are now describing themselves as a mainstream social-democrat party, but communism is also gone, so where could he have gone?
A Majority of One?
Edutcher, I suppose you think I'm being evasive about some manifestly apparent "gotcha" you (think you) have presented, but all I can see is an opaque insinuation of...something. What that something might be is inscrutable to me.
Perhaps you're not as good a communicator of your meaning as you may think.
Dante said...
Synova, Assassination is illegal due to Executive Order 1233, by Ronald Reagan.
But, I don't think Al Qaeda attains the status of political organization, and so the order does not apply. So, Obama (and Bush) get to skate on the many assassinations of Al Qaeda dignitaries, though we are not at war with Al Qaeda.
======================
Dante, we declared fucking war with Al Qaeda with the 2001 AUMF passed by Congress.
Fucking Al Qaeda, and not just jihadis on the battlefield with guns or box cutters. Plus fucking American traitors within Al Qaeda (the ones Rand Paul heart-throbs).
And of course any fucking Islamoid civilian that offers them aid and comfort. Which is why when a 500 lb bomb was dropped from a non-drone on a house Zarqawi was guest at in Iraq - no one was blubbering about the "innocent civilians" whacked along with their honored guest, except the left.
But that does not mean the AUMF extends to "any radical Islamist anywhere in the world that hates us or Our Special Friend Israel".
That is why Syria is problematic for me - it widens a war, introduces a whole new list of targeted enemy who are not Al Qaeda or offer AQ material support.... and Congress hasn't voted on it.
That is why Syria is problematic for me - it widens a war, introduces a whole new list of targeted enemy who are not Al Qaeda or offer AQ material support.... and Congress hasn't voted on it.
Congress hasn't voted on it, but then again Congress didn't vote on Libya either.
One problem with your approach though is, we are dealing with a war on multiple fronts. Yes, afghanistan obviously, but what if Al Qaeda boogies on to another country. Or what if they are in multiple countries at the same time. Do we need an authorization for eac country as if it were a separate war?
Synova:
Congress already declared war on terror (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists)
Syria is now or will be a failed state with Al Qaeda operating freely. Ozero Whosein already has the authority to strike with drones or Marines or Bus Drivers... his choice as CIC.
Trooper Dork:
The Libtards get a pass from the press, the UN and EU POS. Get over it. It's been that way from day one and it won't ever change. Whinging about it is 67% of the repugs current problem. 33% is from the moronic design bible thumpers. That's right, you don't need to give up the comforting reacharound you get from the Duke to save your party.
Stop being hysterical bitches, dump the snake handlers and Congress is yours.
NEXT
Robert Cook is the only true "liberal" on these boards. The rest of them (garage,phx,Ritmo) really are just rooting for the laundry.
I've consistently been against foreign adventurism, drone warfare, torture, and stupid fucking wars like Iraq, which any fool should have known was a horrifically stupid idea.
No idea what your position is, or was, besides being just anti-Obama. And you've been around Althouse for years, right?
Frankly, I am a hawk and don't give a shit about the 'precious lives and due process rights' of "innocent civilians" building IEDs or just cooking meals for AQ fighters or cleaning their AK-47s when a bomb hits.
There are no innocent civilians, just as there are no guilty civilians that become guilty the minute they pick up arms to serve their country or cause.
Just friendlies, neutrals, enemy combatants, and enemy non-combatants.
To my way of thinking, we could have ended the Somali pirate threat in a couple days by voting a AUMF, then air and naval forces of the US, Russia, and hopefully NATO targeting and destroying 45-50 Somali vessels they had that were "Pirate Mother Ships" or that were capable of being such. End of problem.
And that would mean whacking "innocent crew" along with the skinny bucaneers. And "noble Somali fishing vessels" that didn't have any pirate crews on board on the particular trip they were sunk on, they were in a pirate lull and decided to actually fish for mackeral, and were 'wantonly attacked and sunk by evil white Westerners'.
And of course have liberals and progressive Jews in media and academia blubbering about due process rights (unless a black person was President).
But 2 days, and all piracy ends with all the mother ships sunk or burning in port.
But the parameters of war do need to be defined, and unless it is war to stop an immenent threat or attack in progress, The People have to weigh in through a Congressional vote.
Syria doesn't meet that test.
Howard... You're cute and all but I personally have a problem with writing the President a blank check to wage war in an ever wider theater.
If you're right that he does have that power... well he *shouldn't* have that power. It should not be up to whoever happens to be President of the US today if we're going to begin a "kinetic action" in yet another country's territory.
War in the future will seldom be war in the traditional sense of a war between nations and the "rules" we establish now for waging a war on an organization without borders is actually sort of important.
The president can and must act in an emergency. This is NOT an emergency.
I find myself in agreement with Cedarford.
That should give you pause.
Thing is that being wrong about some things doesn't make you wrong about everything.
I think the world would be better instead of accepting or rejecting people as a whole package, we accepted or rejected *parts*... viewing each idea on it's own merits rather than on the source.
People are never all right or all wrong, all good or all bad, all brilliant or all stupid.
JR565 - One problem with your approach though is, we are dealing with a war on multiple fronts. Yes, afghanistan obviously, but what if Al Qaeda boogies on to another country. Or what if they are in multiple countries at the same time. Do we need an authorization for eac country as if it were a separate war?
The 2001 AUMF limited war to Al Qaeda and it's direct material supporters.
It did not say "any Muslim that dislikes the US or it's Special Friend Israel".
Now, I happen to think, like many that have followed Bush's "War on the Evildoers that are Trying to Hijack the Religion of Peace" - that the line between Al Qaeda fanatics and Iranian Shiite fanatics and Somali and Egyptian Salafists and secular Iraqi Sunnis that thought the US hijacked their country and had common cause with Al Qaeda - is pretty blurred.
Good reason to in other times, send the whole thing back to Congress to reframe the scope and limits of the 2001 AUMF. But right now, Congress and the electorate in America have failed to get a good, competent democratic leadership of the nation for 12 years..The assholes are corrupted by money, can't even pass a budget. The assholes in the electorate like bible thumpers, Obamaphone mommas, and women that get wet when they see Obama on TV have outvoted the competent part of America.
Cedarford said...
Frankly, I am a hawk ... there are no guilty civilians that become guilty the minute they pick up arms to serve their country or cause.
While I might agree, there is a "whoops" in this idea. Unfortunately, under McChrystal and subsequently Petraeus, and ever since, the US Rules of Engagement declare everyone, civilian or militia fighter, to be innocent in a war zone, armed as they might well be, unless they are actually pointing their weapons at you.
Ref: My response to Cedarford...
The exception, of course, is whatever the White House elects to do with its kill lists and drones, previously carried out by Brennan sans consultation with CIA or Pentagon, and now will be by his beard as DCIA.
How much Congressional buy in does Obama and his operators like Brennan seek?
None?
Oh, well ....
Look over there!! ... SQUIRREL!!
Fill in the blanks for Squirrel: R. Paul whimpering about a promise from Holder & Obama; Hillary testifying, Dempsey testifying; etc., etc. etc.
I endorse C4s approach to the Somali pirate situation. The british used that very approach to end piracy in the 19th century. Pirates were hung and their bodies displayed in iron cages at the entrance to harbors for all to see.
It is remarkable to me that modern nation states with all the weapons and technology in their inventories cannot bring to heel a bunch of 13th century pirates.
Cedarford wrote:
The 2001 AUMF limited war to Al Qaeda and it's direct material supporters.
It did not say "any Muslim that dislikes the US or it's Special Friend Israel".
Now, I happen to think, like many that have followed Bush's "War on the Evildoers that are Trying to Hijack the Religion of Peace" - that the line between Al Qaeda fanatics and Iranian Shiite fanatics and Somali and Egyptian Salafists and secular Iraqi Sunnis that thought the US hijacked their country and had common cause with Al Qaeda - is pretty blurred.
Even if you limit it to ONLY Al Qaeda, you can still have Al Qaeda be in Syria. In which case, targeting people in Syria who are Al Qaeda would be allowable.
But as you say, it is blurred. THere are many groups who are not specifically called Al Qaeda who work with Al Qaeda to achieve the same objectives.
So, would the AUMF limit the war to Al Qaeda only, and not people who are affiliated with them and in league with them? That would border on farce if it were that specific.
Just as WWII became a war against the Japanese, the Germans, The ITalians, the Muslims etc. ANd that was a war dealing with states and countries.
This current war is dealing with groups of sometime loose affiliation and interconnectedness across many countries.
Suppose for example, Al Qaeda changed it's name. Could we no longer fight the group because our war was with Al Qaeda?
Synova wrote:
Howard... You're cute and all but I personally have a problem with writing the President a blank check to wage war in an ever wider theater.
YOu must have had a problem, then, with WWII.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा