The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

I think the distinction is that unlike, say a Finnish barber shop for instance, a Yemeni Al Qaeda training camps are a pretty good place to put some level of "trust" into the military killing somebody.

I understand the slippery slope argument and I'm usually on that side of it. In this case, I'm indifferent due to "where" this man was killed. He certainly wasn't there trying to talk them into surrendering and turning over a new leaf. Is there a line to be drawn somewhere between witch hunts & bureaucracy run-wild? I think so...this just isn't it imho.

Evangelical Christian planning terrorist bombings of abortion clinics, operating in U.S. Same result?

[stevew]

What was that whole thing about the guy trying to fly model airplanes full of C4 into buildings? Surely that couldn't be effective....seemed more like a "we need to warn you of these evil doers so that you remain on edge and concede freedom" type reveal.

[Marc Vaughan]

I'd recommend reading 'Them - Adventures with extremists", its written by a journalist who went out of his way to befriend a lot of the extremist groups which are repeatedly mentioned in newspapers back in England.

They're often shown by the newpapers as well organised and dangerous - whereas his experience is more that they're sad, unhappy individuals largely without a clue ...

Amazon.com: Them: Adventures with Extremists (9780743233217): Jon Ronson: Books

(its written biased against them (fairly obviously) and does tend towards bringing out the ironic because us English like that sort of humour and it makes for a good read - but its still worth looking at imho)

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

Evangelical Christian planning terrorist bombings of abortion clinics, operating in U.S. Same result?

If such person were a known operative for an organization that has been tied to mass murder, and such a place were in a country where said organization had established training camps that are unchallanged by the local government...sure, go ahead and fire away.

But no, the Christian tag (or evangelical ftm) has no relevance or bearing just as calling this other guy a Muslim doesn't either. People claim to be many things and commit acts based on what they think they are.

Just as we don't give credence to criminals who think they are God, we also don't give them a pass for claiming to be a follower of a God.

[Chubby]

How is he any different than outlaws being wanted "dead or alive", weren't they US citizens too?

[rowech]

WTF is this even being debated? He was a willing participant in a group of people that had declared war on the United States -- not just in rhetoric but in attacks in every way, shape, and form. At that point, he's not a citizen -- he's an enemy soldier. He was killed as part of that and we're bothered by this? It's one thing to be talking against the US. It's something completely different to be going to war against the country.

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

If such person were a known operative for an organization that has been tied to mass murder, and such a place were in a country where said organization had established training camps that are unchallanged by the local government...sure, go ahead and fire away.

But no, the Christian tag (or evangelical ftm) has no relevance or bearing just as calling this other guy a Muslim doesn't either. People claim to be many things and commit acts based on what they think they are.

Just as we don't give credence to criminals who think they are God, we also don't give them a pass for claiming to be a follower of a God.

I shouldn't have used the religious tag because it's irrelevant to the point. More important was a terrorist operating in the U.S.

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by Chubby

How is he any different than outlaws being wanted "dead or alive", weren't they US citizens too?

Don't know enough about the history of the "Wild West" to know the truth of it, but our government has done quite a few things in the past we wouldn't approve of today.

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by rowech

WTF is this even being debated? He was a willing participant in a group of people that had declared war on the United States -- not just in rhetoric but in attacks in every way, shape, and form. At that point, he's not a citizen -- he's an enemy soldier. He was killed as part of that and we're bothered by this? It's one thing to be talking against the US. It's something completely different to be going to war against the country.

Because some people believe in rule of law. The Bill of Rights includes a robust set of protections for American citizens. These procedural rules often require we make difficult decisions that put these protections above substantive law. For instance, convictions against a drug dealer thrown out because the police violated his Fourth Amendment rights. It's the cost of of our commitment to those ideals.

As I said before, this was not a case where we tried to capture but instead killed him. We assassinated him. Maybe you think this is perfectly fine, but you should at least recognize why people are somewhat uneasy about it.

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

Because some people believe in rule of law. The Bill of Rights includes a robust set of protections for American citizens. These procedural rules often require we make difficult decisions that put these protections above substantive law. For instance, convictions against a drug dealer thrown out because the police violated his Fourth Amendment rights. It's the cost of of our commitment to those ideals.

As I said before, this was not a case where we tried to capture but instead killed him. We assassinated him. Maybe you think this is perfectly fine, but you should at least recognize why people are somewhat uneasy about it.

And, as far as I know, Al-Alwaki legally remained a U.S. citizen, despite the rule you would apparently like in place.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

Because some people believe in rule of law. The Bill of Rights includes a robust set of protections for American citizens. These procedural rules often require we make difficult decisions that put these protections above substantive law. For instance, convictions against a drug dealer thrown out because the police violated his Fourth Amendment rights. It's the cost of of our commitment to those ideals.

As I said before, this was not a case where we tried to capture but instead killed him. We assassinated him. Maybe you think this is perfectly fine, but you should at least recognize why people are somewhat uneasy about it.

So during the Civil War the opposing sides should have been trying to grab each other so they could go to trial instead of fighting a war?

[rowech]

If we were at war with another country instead of some group, and a citizen took up arms for the other country and was killed, nobody would think twice about any of these things.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by rowech

If we were at war with another country instead of some group, and a citizen took up arms for the other country and was killed, nobody would think twice about any of these things.

There's a difference between killed and assassinated. It's a distinction that has been made in this thread, so I'm not sure why you're ignoring it unless it's just not convenient for your argument.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

There's a difference between killed and assassinated. It's a distinction that has been made in this thread, so I'm not sure why you're ignoring it unless it's just not convenient for your argument.

You're not assassinated if you're part of an enemy that declared war on the people who got you. You're KIA.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

There's a difference between killed and assassinated. It's a distinction that has been made in this thread, so I'm not sure why you're ignoring it unless it's just not convenient for your argument.

To me, you have to ask at what point does the layer of obfuscation get applied or not applied?

For instance, we clearly target groups of people when at war with another nation on a battlefield. Does it matter if we (do or don't) know their individual names before we attempt to kill them? Or is it only assassination when its 1 person and that person is deemed "important" (and by who)?

The group Al Qaeda, whether it has recognized possession of land or not, is an organization that the U.S. has established cause (IMO) to kill members of without attempting to apprehend. And any US citizen that defects to the side of a nation or other organized entity which we are at war with subjects themselves to being identified (whether formally or informally) with the enemy. This is the very nature of war until such time we deem this entity to no longer be relevant, our enemy, or worth our resources (both financial & human) to continue waging war with. Where & how they attempt to kill Al Qaeda members certainly has limitation but certainly a training camp in Yemen is not it, in my view.

I understand the mere notion of "enemy" is something we don't like to hear. But at some point, as a nation (or organized group) or people, you must establish how you will (or will not) interact with nations or groups which you believe to be working to cause harm to your population. And generally speaking...the word "enemy" means you simply kill them.

[SportsDino]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

BBC News - Trader was not a hoaxer, says BBC

I doubt its a hoax, I've known a few traders with a nearly identical personality. Only surprise is he is on tv saying all of this, maybe its a new tactic to stir up the panic further.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

To me, you have to ask at what point does the layer of obfuscation get applied or not applied?

For instance, we clearly target groups of people when at war with another nation on a battlefield. Does it matter if we (do or don't) know their individual names before we attempt to kill them? Or is it only assassination when its 1 person and that person is deemed "important" (and by who)?

The group Al Qaeda, whether it has recognized possession of land or not, is an organization that the U.S. has established cause (IMO) to kill members of without attempting to apprehend. And any US citizen that defects to the side of a nation or other organized entity which we are at war with subjects themselves to being identified (whether formally or informally) with the enemy. This is the very nature of war until such time we deem this entity to no longer be relevant, our enemy, or worth our resources (both financial & human) to continue waging war with. Where & how they attempt to kill Al Qaeda members certainly has limitation but certainly a training camp in Yemen is not it, in my view.

I understand the mere notion of "enemy" is something we don't like to hear. But at some point, as a nation (or organized group) or people, you must establish how you will (or will not) interact with nations or groups which you believe to be working to cause harm to your population. And generally speaking...the word "enemy" means you simply kill them.

Try them for treason. There is a system set out for just these sorts of people. Unfortunately both parties have decided it's easier to just let the President make these decisions unilaterally.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by rowech

You're not assassinated if you're part of an enemy that declared war on the people who got you. You're KIA.

The IRA declared 'war' on England and committed far more terrorist acts than any which have been perpetrated against America in the last decade; many of these acts were directly funded by people within America - would you have agreed with England having assassinated IRA members who were in America raising funds in those circumstances?

I know where you're coming from to a certain degree - but terrorism isn't 'war' regardless of the rhetoric surrounding it, if you fight it with violence then you're just feeding the loopback system and proving to the people involved that they're right to hate your country and act against it.

imho the only way to fight terrorist activities is to resist strongly on your own terms, not stooping to those of the people committing the acts.

[Edward64]

Here's a list of 1's, 2's and 3+'s in case anyone was counting.

Dead, captured and wanted – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs

[Update September 30, 2011] With the reports of the death of American-born Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, take a look back at some of the dead, captured and remaining most wanted terrorists from the last 10 years.

[Original post] Ten years after the devastating attacks on America, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta recently said the U.S is "within reach of strategically defeating al-Qaeda." His comments came following the successful joint U.S. intelligence and military operation in May that led to the death of number one terrorist Osama Bin Laden, and the intensified effort over the past several years to wipe out senior al Qaeda operatives through drone missile strikes. "I do believe that if we continue this effort that we can really cripple al-Qaeda as a threat to this country," maintained Panetta.

Although there have been some impressive gains in wiping out the terrorist leadership through both capture and killing, there are still a significant number of names on the most wanted list.

CNN spoke with a number of intelligence agencies to come up with a list of the dirty dozens: the 12 most significant terrorists who are now dead, have been captured and those who are still being hunted. The lists are obviously subjective–there are many more candidates–but these are some of the top combatants in the war on terror.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Try them for treason. There is a system set out for just these sorts of people. Unfortunately both parties have decided it's easier to just let the President make these decisions unilaterally.

Was he willing to turn himself in? It didn't seem like this guy was interested in going the legal route either. We are allowed to take out threats whether that be a terrorist planning attacks overseas or a guy holding a gun to someone's head.

[Edward64]

I think this may be used against him if he becomes a real threat but good to see he is sticking by his principles.

News from The Associated Press

MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) -- Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is condemning the Obama administration for killing an American born al-Qaida operative without a trial.

Paul, a Texas congressman known for libertarian views, says the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki on Yemeni soil amounts to an "assassination." Paul warned the American people not to casually accept such violence against U.S. citizens, even those with strong ties to terrorism.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Was he willing to turn himself in? It didn't seem like this guy was interested in going the legal route either. We are allowed to take out threats whether that be a terrorist planning attacks overseas or a guy holding a gun to someone's head.

Yep...pretty much. In the example above, we don't put priority of apprehending the "attempted" murderer (i.e. so we can try them in court) above stopping the murder by force. The same would be true for treason, where the offender is embedded in an enemy's despotic compound (or training ground) with no (capable) local law enforcement.

[JPhillips]

Try him in absentia. Even if you need legislation to make it happen, it's doable.

We've ceded far too much authority to the executive over the past decade. Forcing the government to justify accusations of treason was one of the central protections granted to the populace. If it's so obvious this guy is deserving of execution it shouldn't be hard to prove that.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I think this may be used against him if he becomes a real threat but good to see he is sticking by his principles.

News from The Associated Press

This is the problem with Ron Paul as I see it. While its fine to be an isolationist as a general guiding principle, and while I'm sure he would suggest that we would not be the target of groups like Al Qaeda if we just let Iraq keep Kuwait and invade & conquer Saudi Arabia (subsequently why we would have no need to target and kill a guy like Al Awlaki)...the reality of the world isn't conducive to pure isolationism for the world's most powerful country's fundamental interests (which is to keep the world from chaos more than it is to prevent wars...if you follow that line of thought). Does it have to be free-wheeling "overthrow all evil-doers" type policy? Of course not.

But the things that lead up to groups like Al Qaeda are so much more dependent on poverty(a poor economic structure) & lack of freedoms (like the press, women's rights, voting, etc.) than they are on the microcosm of wrong actions by the US (and the above is what enables the wrongdoings to be spun & amplified as if these are the root of the problems).

This is why I am hopeful of the Arab spring and all of the uprisings that have taken place in the Middle East. Its a bit scary as you don't know what or who will end up assuming authority but I think it is worth supporting these changes to the extent that we can as they will happen because the average Middle Easterner is seeing the problem for themselves...leadership which isn't working to improve their personal lives. And that leadership has seen that the world will not sit by and let them slaughter masses of people just maintain their authority, which leads to oppression, and enables groups like Al Qaeda to even exist as outlet (or perceived solution) for this oppression in the first place.

And to tie all of this back to Ron Paul...I don't think Ron Paul foreign policy would lead to this type of common-man uprising as he'd rather sit by & let them slaughter their own people and each others' people so long as it doesn't directly kill people in the US (its unclear to me his policy on attacks against the US, but I give him the benefit of the doubt there). That's fine policy if you're Canada or Switzerland since "somebody" else will stop those problems...but not if you're the US/Europe/China/Australia, and not if your interests are to keep the world from going to chaos so as not to have to face down the winner of a game of "dictator king of the hill" where the winner controls half the world's oil (which you'll need to stop such a threat).

I like Ron Paul as a voice in the debate. I just think some of his ideas are just too unrealistic & purist for the reality of the world.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

We've ceded far too much authority to the executive over the past decade. Forcing the government to justify accusations of treason was one of the central protections granted to the populace. If it's so obvious this guy is deserving of execution it shouldn't be hard to prove that.

That's a fair point. My assumption is that you'd have a hard time finding "witnesses" to testify, and since the majority of evidence against him would be technically circumstantial (or at the least...uncontested), it would lead to accusation of just being a kangaroo court procedure.

I suppose you could go through that for the sake of having procedure to it...but the verdict will never be "kill on sight" anyway so not sure what type of problem that solves.

[Edward64]

Obviously the DOJ is not a war tribunal or court of law but at least some due diligence was done. He was clear and present danger.

Secret U.S. memo sanctioned killing of Aulaqi - The Washington Post

The Justice Department wrote a secret memorandum authorizing the lethal targeting of Anwar al-Aulaqi, the American-born radical cleric who was killed by a U.S. drone strike Friday, according to administration officials.

The document was produced following a review of the legal issues raised by striking a U.S. citizen and involved senior lawyers from across the administration. There was no dissent about the legality of killing Aulaqi, the officials said.

“What constitutes due process in this case is a due process in war,” said one of the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss closely held deliberations within the administration.

[Edward64]

I was thinking that Leon Panetta is one of those people that have been in the background but really is a mover and shaker. I remembered him as budget director, then CIA and now Defense Chief.

Wiki gives him credit for expanding the drone strikes which has been pretty successful imo.

Leon Panetta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leon Edward Panetta (born June 28, 1938) is the 23rd and current United States Secretary of Defense, serving in the administration of President Barack Obama since 2011. Prior to taking office, he served as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. An Italian-American Democratic politician, lawyer, and professor, Panetta served as President Bill Clinton's White House Chief of Staff from 1994 to 1997, Director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1993-1994 and was a member of the United States House of Representatives from 1977 to 1993. He is the founder of the Panetta Institute for Public Policy, served as Distinguished Scholar to Chancellor Charles B. Reed of the California State University System and professor of public policy at Santa Clara University.

On February 19, 2009, Leon Panetta was sworn in as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency by Vice President Joe Biden before an audience of CIA employees. Panetta reportedly received a "rock star welcome" from his new subordinates.[26]

In March 2009, Panetta visited India to discuss a host of issues including common strategy on dealing with Islamic extremism and Taliban. This was his first international visit since he assumed office.[27]

Panetta supported U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, which he identified as the "most effective weapon" against senior Al-Qaeda leadership.[28][29] These attacks increased significantly under Panetta, with as many as 50 suspected Al-Qaeda militants being killed in May 2009 alone.[30][31][32]

As director of the CIA, Panetta presided over the operations that led to Osama bin Laden's death on May 1, 2011.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

That's a fair point. My assumption is that you'd have a hard time finding "witnesses" to testify, and since the majority of evidence against him would be technically circumstantial (or at the least...uncontested), it would lead to accusation of just being a kangaroo court procedure.

I suppose you could go through that for the sake of having procedure to it...but the verdict will never be "kill on sight" anyway so not sure what type of problem that solves.

In this particular case a kangaroo court wouldn't bother me. I'm more concerned about establishing systems so that when it isn't so obvious there is a break on executive authority. Over the past decade we've allowed the executive to indefinitely detain citizens without access to lawyers or family, torture citizens, and now execute citizens. Giving the executive that much unchecked authority is bound to lead to abuses. Even if you don't think there have already been abuses, and I'll admit I do, you should be concerned about where these powers will lead.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

I like Ron Paul as a voice in the debate. I just think some of his ideas are just too unrealistic & purist for the reality of the world.

I agree but it is refreshing.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

In this particular case a kangaroo court wouldn't bother me.

The biggest problem with this is that it has the potential to undermine the entire judicial system. If you start with one, then every other one has that potential.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Try him in absentia. Even if you need legislation to make it happen, it's doable.

We've ceded far too much authority to the executive over the past decade. Forcing the government to justify accusations of treason was one of the central protections granted to the populace. If it's so obvious this guy is deserving of execution it shouldn't be hard to prove that.

What does that change though? So the guy is found guilty. He gets appeals and I don't believe you can execute someone with a cruise missile.

For me I look at it as, who gives a shit? If the government starts firing missiles out of predator drones at drug dealers in Baltimore, I'll be upset. But this guy was a pretty shitty dude who was trying to kill as many of us as possible. He was sitting in a shithole like Yemen where we couldn't exactly storm in and arrest him without incident.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

The biggest problem with this is that it has the potential to undermine the entire judicial system. If you start with one, then every other one has that potential.

Right, not to mention that now you'll have to establish what to consider "assassination" vs "KIA because we were trying to kill lots of enemies". And the end result is that the government will no longer be as forthcoming with these types of things and simply tell us he was KIA but not the target of the strike if targeting is what will break the legality.

It creates the situation where you have to spite your nose for the sake of your face. I don't like creating those contradictions of motivation, and as RM pointed out, this wasn't just some common thug on civilized soil...this was a real enemy of our people, whether he was a citizen or not.

How do you define that formally? IDK...but I'm not too worried about that yet (yet, being the operative word) based on this situation.

[molson]

Do we know that an arrest was feasible? The U.S. would probably preferred to take him in for interrogation purposes. Maybe people think that it's better to just let him live than kill him, but its misleading to frame this as "kill him v. try him", when the latter may not have been an option at all.

Also, it's interesting that when the guy's killed, suddenly people that usually oppose military tribunals are OK with them. If he was in custody, wouldn't you be calling for a regular civilian trial instead of a military tribunal (like with all the other terrorists who aren't even American citizens)?

And, it's interesting that citizenship is apparently now a meaningful distinction in this instance, where typically, that opposing voice thinks the constitution applies to everyone, anywhere, regardless of citizenship or location.

It does seem like that whatever happens, that opposing voice will just deduct 15% from what the president actually did and say "they should have done this instead".

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

The biggest problem with this is that it has the potential to undermine the entire judicial system. If you start with one, then every other one has that potential.

I don't think it has as much potential to undermine the judicial system as ignoring the need for a trial.

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by molson

Do we know that an arrest was feasible? The U.S. would probably preferred to take him in for interrogation purposes. Maybe people think that it's better to just let him live than kill him, but its misleading to frame this as "kill him v. try him", when the latter may not have been an option at all.

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. The point is that he wasn't killed in battle. We specifically targeted him for killing a while ago.

Also, it's interesting that when the guy's killed, suddenly people that usually oppose military tribunals are OK with them. If he was in custody, wouldn't you be calling for a regular civilian trial instead of a military tribunal (like with all the other terrorists who aren't even American citizens)?

Civillian trial fine with me.

And, it's interesting that citizenship is apparently now a meaningful distinction in this instance, where typically, that opposing voice thinks the constitution applies to everyone, anywhere, regardless of citizenship or location.

Don't think they're necessarily inconsistent views. One need not argue citizens are entitled to more protection. One can just worry that even citizens are entitled to full protection, it appears.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

Do we know that an arrest was feasible? The U.S. would probably preferred to take him in for interrogation purposes. Maybe people think that it's better to just let him live than kill him, but its misleading to frame this as "kill him v. try him", when the latter may not have been an option at all.

Also, it's interesting that when the guy's killed, suddenly people that usually oppose military tribunals are OK with them. If he was in custody, wouldn't you be calling for a regular civilian trial instead of a military tribunal (like with all the other terrorists who aren't even American citizens)?

And, it's interesting that citizenship is apparently now a meaningful distinction in this instance, where typically, that opposing voice thinks the constitution applies to everyone, anywhere, regardless of citizenship or location.

It does seem like that whatever happens, that opposing voice will just deduct 15% from what the president actually did and say "they should have done this instead".

I don't think I ever said I was opposed to the idea of military tribunals. My problem was not having any system to deal with Guantanamo detainees.

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

What does that change though? So the guy is found guilty. He gets appeals and I don't believe you can execute someone with a cruise missile.

For me I look at it as, who gives a shit? If the government starts firing missiles out of predator drones at drug dealers in Baltimore, I'll be upset. But this guy was a pretty shitty dude who was trying to kill as many of us as possible. He was sitting in a shithole like Yemen where we couldn't exactly storm in and arrest him without incident.

What changes is that the government went through the process required. The outcome of a trial is all-but certain in many cases, but we still go through the process of letting the justice system decide instead of the executive making a unilateral decision. As I said, there are costs to having the protection we have in place. Sure, some decisions become a lot easier if we have a rule that says "due process applies unless the executive branch decides this person is really, really bad and it will be hard to try them in a court of law", but I think the problems with that are obvious, without even resorting to slippery slope arguments.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't think I ever said I was opposed to the idea of military tribunals. My problem was not having any system to deal with Guantanamo detainees.

True, looking back I'm thinking of someone else.

[Edward64]

I think Dick is stretching a little on this matter but then there is the problem of Gitmo that's still open for business.

Cheney: Obama owes apology for security criticism of Bush administration - CNN.com

"I think it was a very good strike. I think it was justified," Cheney told CNN's Candy Crowley on "State of the Union." But "I'm waiting for the administration to go back and correct something they said two years ago when they criticized us for 'overreacting' to the events of 9/11."

Obama "in effect said that we had walked away from (America's) ideals," Cheney argued. "I think he did tremendous damage. I think he slandered the nation and I think he owes an apology to the American people."

The Obama administration has "clearly ... moved in the direction of taking robust action when they feel it is justified," Cheney said.

Republican critics of the administration claim it is hypocritical for Obama to approve the killing of Americans without due process while criticizing Bush officials for signing off on the use of so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" such waterboarding.

[DaddyTorgo]

LMAO - the irony of Cheny (who is afraid to leave the country for fear of being arrested and tried in the ICC) complaining about this administration on this issue is hilarious.

Pot meat original motherfucking kettle.

[Dutch]

The reality is that no right-wing conservative should be upset that President Obama has essentially "stayed the course" with regard to the Global War on Terror (Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo) policies that were put in place by the Bush administration.

Obama's done enough on the foreign policy front to calm any concerns I had going into this in '08 anyway (and there were many).

As for Cheney, he's just playing politics and staying in the spotlight so his book sells well, I suppose.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The reality is that no right-wing conservative should be upset that President Obama has essentially "stayed the course" with regard to the Global War on Terror (Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo) policies that were put in place by the Bush administration.

Obama's done enough on the foreign policy front to calm any concerns I had going into this in '08 anyway (and there were many).

As for Cheney, he's just playing politics and staying in the spotlight so his book sells well, I suppose.

Agreed. I've been frustrated by Obama on several fronts, but keeping most Bush admin policies has been one of his best moves. He's a hypocrite, but he's made the right decision in the end and that's all that matters.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Agreed. I've been frustrated by Obama on several fronts, but keeping most Bush admin policies has been one of his best moves. He's a hypocrite, but he's made the right decision in the end and that's all that matters.

He did say he would withdraw from Iraq (and for the most part have kept that promise) and increase our role in Afghanistan (which he has done). I think the increased drone strikes in Pakistan is a bonus.

I think the key hypocritical promise is gitmo.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

He did say he would withdraw from Iraq (and for the most part have kept that promise) and increase our role in Afghanistan (which he has done). I think the increased drone strikes in Pakistan is a bonus.

I think the key hypocritical promise is gitmo.

Gitmo is what I was referring to. I think we should give Obama credit for putting some people in place to advise him well in regards to the military. He was ready to withdraw ASAP in those areas, but eventually capitulated and made some more reasonable time frames that fit the situation much better.

[JPhillips]

He tried to close Gitmo, but Congress refused to provide the funds.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

He tried to close Gitmo, but Congress refused to provide the funds.

Honestly, I think he either does not want to spend or has enough political capital to do it.

Obama Administration Misses Deadline To Close Guantánamo | American Civil Liberties Union

According to news reports today, the administration has decided to continue to detain without trial nearly 50 of the 198 Guantánamo prisoners because a presidential task force concluded that "they are too difficult to prosecute but too dangerous to release." The American Civil Liberties Union disputes that any significant category of such detainees exists, and renews its call for the closure of the prison and an end to the illegal policy of indefinite detention without charge or trial.

Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General, Insists On Guantanamo Closure (PHOTOS)

BRUSSELS — U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday that the Obama administration will do its utmost to close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay before next year's presidential elections despite political opposition.

Holder said at the European Parliament that even if the current administration fails to close it ahead of elections, it will continue to press ahead if it wins the November 2012 presidential vote.

Republican presidential rival Rick Perry has said he is happy the U.S. prison at Guantanamo has been kept open.

Holder said the administration wants to close the facility "as quickly as possible, recognizing that we will face substantial pressure."

The campaign promise to close Guantanamo has been a major problem for President Barack Obama since he took office. He had promised to close the prison within a year but it remains open as his campaign for re-election gets under way.

[JPhillips]

He certainly doesn't have the capital to do it. He can't get anything past the House or past a filibuster in the Senate. And there are a number of Dems willing to grandstand on it.

[Edward64]

Pretty good article from the washingtonpost.com

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...y.html?hpid=z3

The killing of Awlaki raises additional legal concerns because U.S. citizens have certain constitutional rights wherever they are in the world. Some human rights groups have asserted that due process requires prior judicial review before killing an American, but it is unlikely that the Constitution requires judicial involvement in the case of a U.S. citizen engaged in terrorist activity outside this country. Administration lawyers undoubtedly reviewed the targeting of Awlaki even more carefully than of a non-American, and the Justice Department reportedly prepared an opinion concluding that his killing would comply with domestic and international law. This is likely to be considered sufficient due process under U.S. constitutional standards.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

I doubt its a hoax, I've known a few traders with a nearly identical personality. Only surprise is he is on tv saying all of this, maybe its a new tactic to stir up the panic further.

I thought it was common knowledge that it was easier to make money in a down economy than an up economy, if you're "fast money". 401Ks and other institutional investors are in there for the long haul so that's a lot of money to be made shorting in the short term.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I think this may be used against him if he becomes a real threat but good to see he is sticking by his principles.

News from The Associated Press

I have to say, I'm with Ron Paul on this one. Just not a fan at all of killing American citizens without due process.

If you knew where he was to bomb him, you could have rounded him up and brought him back to trial...

SI