Statist Lindsey Graham: Obama Needs Protection From Libertarians and the Left

reply to post by OptimusSubprime


He's not Progressive....
The GOP supports the drone program as is. When it comes to war Obama and the GOP are pretty well in lock-step the GOP just doesn't like to admit it.

reply to post by Kali74


relevant to the discussion

Justice Department To Share Secret Drone Memo With Congress

"An administration official says the president personally made the decision to give lawmakers on the house and Senate intelligence committees a chance to review the memo.

The classified document provides a legal justification for killing U.S. citizens who have become senior operatives in al-Qaida.

A U.S. drone killed radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen in Yemen in September 2011.

Senators said they wanted to see the basis for that action before they would approve a new CIA director. The administration official says the release is extraordinary and does not set a precedent."

www.npr.org...

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

I think some people would rather go "in country" with our military guns blazing - and use our large testicles to go house to house, killing as many people as possible (including our own military members) to make a "show of force" - You know... Shock and Awe.

Wouldn't you agree that this is exactly why President Obama used the SEAL team to 'get' Osama bin Laden?

Hellfire missile wouldn't have killed him.... and his wives.... and his children?

Again...It is important to differentiate between Osama Bin Laden...who bunkered down at a single location without leaving it for well over a year...and mobile targets in hiding...wack-a-mole.

The reason the Seals were able to prepare for months, complete with building a mock-up of the entire compound in the Nevada desert and conduct an on-the-ground operation was because he was a profoundly static target...never left his compound.

In contrast drone strikes on targets in places like Yemen? They rotate drones watching known locations, meeting houses, training grounds of Al-Qaida and watch for high level leaders...operational planners...could take months...and then one shows up...soon to be gone and on his way again...the window is minutes vs. months or years.

THAT is why they "went in" with Osama Bin Laden and opt to drone strike for moving targets in hiding...wack-a-mole...a window of minutes or a couple hours at best, 5000 miles away in unfriendly lands....vs. a target like OBL who hadn't left his house in over a year.

Originally posted by buster2010

A person HAS to be convicted of treason. Every American has the right to due process regardless of what the crime is.

Not outright disagreeing with you, but wondering how this applies to foriegn soil? See..Americans are arrested all the time abroad and denied "due process"...ever see "Locked Up Abroad"?? We don't send in the Navy Seals to rescue them...they are outside US Jurisdiction...subject to the laws of the land they are on.

So in the case of Anwar al-Aulaqi ...Born in New Mexico in 1971...at 7 years old returns to Yemen...comes back to the USA in 1991 (20 years old) As an Imam in VA he preached to and coached 3 of the 9-11 hijackers.

Also encouraged/helped Major Nidal Hasan kill the 13 soldiers at foot hood

he presided at the funeral of the mother of Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist who later e-mailed him extensively in 2008-2009 before the Fort Hood shootings.[

Also

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian who attempted the 2009 Christmas Day bombing of an American airliner. Al-Alwaki was allegedly involved in planning the latter's attack.

en.wikipedia.org...

he leaves the US in 2007 and goes into hiding...He is suspected to be in Yemen...

The Yemeni government began trying him in absentia in November 2010, for plotting to kill foreigners and being a member of al-Qaeda. A Yemeni judge ordered that he be captured "dead or alive".[26][27] U.S. officials alleged that in 2009, al-Aulaqi was promoted to the rank of "regional commander" within al-Qaeda.[28][29] He repeatedly called for jihad against the United States.

reply to post by Indigo5

See..Americans are arrested all the time abroad and denied "due process"...ever see "Locked Up Abroad"?? We don't send in the Navy Seals to rescue them...they are outside US Jurisdiction...subject to the laws of the land they are on.

That really concerns Americans being arrested, detained, tried or executed by the foreign country that they are in(for crimes in that country)..... Not the US Government blowing them up for crimes alleged by someone working for the Pentagon.

If an enemy is firing at me, he is fair game.

If he is waking down a road, in a neutral country and he is an American citizen, then he should be afforded those rights.

Our "monarchy" though, wants people dead. And they will use any justification to do it.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

I think some people would rather go "in country" with our military guns blazing - and use our large testicles to go house to house, killing as many people as possible (including our own military members) to make a "show of force" - You know... Shock and Awe.

Wouldn't you agree that this is exactly why President Obama used the SEAL team to 'get' Osama bin Laden?

Hellfire missile wouldn't have killed him.... and his wives.... and his children?

Again...It is important to differentiate between Osama Bin Laden...who bunkered down at a single location without leaving it for well over a year...and mobile targets in hiding...wack-a-mole.

The reason the Seals were able to prepare for months, complete with building a mock-up of the entire compound in the Nevada desert and conduct an on-the-ground operation was because he was a profoundly static target...never left his compound.

In contrast drone strikes on targets in places like Yemen? They rotate drones watching known locations, meeting houses, training grounds of Al-Qaida and watch for high level leaders...operational planners...could take months...and then one shows up...soon to be gone and on his way again...the window is minutes vs. months or years.

THAT is why they "went in" with Osama Bin Laden and opt to drone strike for moving targets in hiding...wack-a-mole...a window of minutes or a couple hours at best, 5000 miles away in unfriendly lands....vs. a target like OBL who hadn't left his house in over a year.

Your answer here provides reasons why a Hellfire missile is used to whack a more mobile terrorist.

It provides no reason why we needed to 'shock and awe' a Pakistani neighborhood with a SEAL team choppered in to 'get' Osama. He was hunkered down. Seems like the easy target for a missile.

It wouldn't make a very exciting news story if they had whacked him with a missile, would it?
And movie about it would be down right boring, eh?

If this ever goes to court I guarantee you it will be a slam dunk support of what the administration is doing.

Classic lie to try and justify his opinion.
Where is the support and statistics for this comment...?? I have not seen nor heard anything.

Originally posted by beezzer
If an enemy is firing at me, he is fair game.

If he is waking down a road, in a neutral country and he is an American citizen, then he should be afforded those rights.

If he has successfully conspired to kill US Soldiers and is continuing to call for the death of Americans by any means possible?

It is acceptable to target Al-Qaida leaders abroad...but if one of those proud killers of Americans happened to be born here and left when he was 7 years old?..We can't pull the trigger?

I disagree with Lindsay Grahm on the constitutionality being a slam dunk...But Anwar al-Aulaqi counseled 3 of the 9-11 Hijackers before 9-11, plus Maj. Nidal Hasan and proudly bragged about his part in killing Americans...Not just CIA claims...the guy was bragging on you-tube...while hiding in Yemen.

We can't pull the trigger, because he was born here?

How many Ft. Hoods have to happen...or another 9-11?...if it is tracked back to him? And CIA has to watch him walk away via a monitor after hunting him for months or years?

Again...I am not 100%, but I am having a hard time faulting the guys pulling the trigger.

reply to post by Indigo5


Surprisingly enough, I would have agreed with you a while back.

We can't cherry-pick our Constitutional rights though. We can't say, "They apply for thee but not for he".

They either apply or they don't.

Originally posted by butcherguy
It provides no reason why we needed to 'shock and awe' a Pakistani neighborhood with a SEAL team choppered in to 'get' Osama. He was hunkered down. Seems like the easy target for a missile.

It wouldn't make a very exciting news story if they had whacked him with a missile, would it?
And movie about it would be down right boring, eh?

If Anwar Al-auligq was similiarly hunkered down, not leaving a house for over a year...vs. highly mobile and hiding...who is to say the seals wouldn't have been sent?

You don't seem to afford for the possibility that a drone strike hinges on wether or not capture is possible?

The leaked memo specifically states on of the conditions must be that "a capture operation is unpheasable" or would involve "undue risk" to lives of those involved.

reply to post by Indigo5


Indigo, a while back there was a thread abut torture.

I openly stated that torture was wrong but I would not hesitate to punch 1/4th inch holes in someone's kneecaps with a Black & Decker drill to aquire information to save lives.

There is what is right.

There is what is just and moral.

There is what is legal.

In the end, you pay your money and take your chances.

reply to post by beezzer


OK...I am going to throw the Hitler paradox at you. Anwar Al-auqi was in fact close friends with Maj. Nidal Hasan, led the service for the Majors mother when she passed...exchanged countless emails encouraging him to do what he did at Fort Hood. He also sat with and counseled 3 of the 9-11 Hijackers before they hijacked the planes on 9-11. He also coached the failed Christmas day bomber/underwear bomber, provided the explosives. He proudly admitted his part in those attacks...it is why he was promoted to heading up Al-Qaida on the Eastern Peninsula.

So just so you know, it's not entirely far fetched...

Say you could go back in time and take out OBL before he plotted and executed 9-11...one chance lasting only a few minutes...but OBL was born here and left when he was 7? He carried American Citizenship..You let him walk? Dissapear again?...with 9-11 on the way?

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by beezzer

 

OK...I am going to throw the Hitler paradox at you. Anwar Al-auqi was in fact close friends with Maj. Nidal Hasan, led the service for the Majors mother when she passed...exchanged countless emails encouraging him to do what he did at Fort Hood. He also sat with and counseled 3 of the 9-11 Hijackers before they hijacked the planes on 9-11. He also coached the failed Christmas day bomber/underwear bomber, provided the explosives. He proudly admitted his part in those attacks...it is why he was promoted to heading up Al-Qaida on the Eastern Peninsula.

So just so you know, it's not entirely far fetched...

Say you could go back in time and take out OBL before he plotted and executed 9-11...one chance lasting only a few minutes...but OBL was born here and left when he was 7? He carried American Citizenship..You let him walk? Dissapear again?...with 9-11 on the way?

Me? Personally? I'd bust a cap in his ass!

Would it be right?
Would it be moral?
Would it be legal and Constitutional?

I'm not perfect. Hell, I'm about as far as you can get. But just because I would do something wouldn't make it right.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Indigo, a while back there was a thread abut torture.

I openly stated that torture was wrong but I would not hesitate to punch 1/4th inch holes in someone's kneecaps with a Black & Decker drill to aquire information to save lives.

There is what is right.

There is what is just and moral.

There is what is legal.

In the end, you pay your money and take your chances.

My principle issue with torture is that it is ineffective IMO. A good Psy Ops specialist can get much more reliable information through talking than torture. Torture leads to be people saying all kinds of lies just to make it stop and then you don't know what is the truth and what isn't...and traded a good chunk of your soul to be left with that confusion.

I am conflicted on the drones legality...I do believe that the Pres. asked for a legal opinion "memo" and has now made it available to congress, because he is mindful that his term in office will end in a few years...and the legality and oversight needs to be hammered out for future administrations...

But, honestly, part of me wishes the legal issue wasn't in the sunlight...It could remain "illegal" black ops...we could still hunt bad guys and if the program went askew/akilter it would be just stamped out in it's entirety.

But engaging in "legality"...issueing memos...giving them to congress to begin hammering out the legality? It will both water down the program and "legitimize" what is left after it is watered down.

I agree...in the light of public scrutiny, there are legal issues with the program that now have to be dealt with...but I also think that once lawyers are crawling all over the program...more people that are proudly capable of and eager to kill innocent Americans will live.

It's just not black and white to me. I remember 9-11 vividly like it was yesterday...It was well planned and executed by men and there are men with resources and a religious drive to repeat it. I have a hard time letting them walk away.

reply to post by Indigo5


Drones take HUMINT out of the equation. Killing should be close and personal. If it were, there'd probably be less.

It's not a bad thing that terrorists are killed though I'd rather see them tried, convicted and live the rest of their lives in misery... not always practical I know as it can cause more innocent lives lost than potentially saved. It's not really the point though and while I appreciate the link to the documents and special circumstances, none of that nullifies the phrase 'even without evidence'. I'm all for creating a process that legally declares individuals traitors or some such. Why can't that happen?

As usual Jon Stewart nails it. (video at link)
truthdig.com

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by OptimusSubprime

 

He's not Progressive....
The GOP supports the drone program as is. When it comes to war Obama and the GOP are pretty well in lock-step the GOP just doesn't like to admit it.

He is indeed a Progressive, a right wing Progressive, who's end goal is no different than a left wing Progressive like Obama. They just have different philosophies of reaching that end, and that is what they argue over.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by butcherguy
It provides no reason why we needed to 'shock and awe' a Pakistani neighborhood with a SEAL team choppered in to 'get' Osama. He was hunkered down. Seems like the easy target for a missile.

It wouldn't make a very exciting news story if they had whacked him with a missile, would it?
And movie about it would be down right boring, eh?

If Anwar Al-auligq was similiarly hunkered down, not leaving a house for over a year...vs. highly mobile and hiding...who is to say the seals wouldn't have been sent?
You don't seem to afford for the possibility that a drone strike hinges on wether or not capture is possible?

The leaked memo specifically states on of the conditions must be that "a capture operation is unpheasable" or would involve "undue risk" to lives of those involved.

I submit that the incursion into Pakistan to get Osama Bin Ladn was unnecessary. We did not ask for permission to enter their country. Many countries would consider that as an act of war. The memo speaks to he whacking of American citizens, which Osama was not. The manner in which he was killed was done theatrically for political purposes. We already had an agreement with Pakistan to whack al Qaeda members with drone strikes, but not to drop SEAL teams in unannounced. They were pissed off by the affair.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Drones take HUMINT out of the equation. Killing should be close and personal. If it were, there'd probably be less.

Yah...in a perfect world.

...If OBL was so committed why didn't he board one of those planes or strap on some explosives? Instead of convincing others to "die for allah".

Essentially folks shouldn't be entitled to eat a hamburger unless they are willing to shoot a cow...

We would think twice about the McD drive through. It would help with the obesity problem.

Yes...killing shouldn't be made easier and more people die when it is. Thats the world we live in though.

We are circling around principle vs practice...ideals vs reality...it's not always easy to find your footing in the grey in-between.

I keep seeing "Jack Nicholson" shouting "You want me on that wall!!"