AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Another Illegal Raid Ordered by Obama
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
I guess this too is "illegal", "criminal" and "unconstitutional".
Because "We were not at at war with Somalia". And theoricaly Obama could have Tait executed if it was him who were in the Tean 6 squad because this was a war crime, ripe for a The Hague tribunal.
All the death were "civilians".
Obama didn't ask a vote from the Congress to invade a country. etc etc.

Whatever you think, it's good news:

Reuters Wrote:American Jessica Buchanan, 32, and Poul Hagen Thisted, 60, of Denmark, humanitarian aid workers for a Danish demining group, were rescued three months after they were kidnapped on October 25 in the town of Galkayo in the semi-autonomous Galmudug region of the Horn of Africa country.

"The United States will not tolerate the abduction of our people and will spare no effort to secure the safety of our citizens and to bring their captors to justice," Obama said in a statement.

The rescue was carried out by forces that included members of the same elite Navy SEAL unit that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden last year in a raid on his compound in Pakistan, a U.S. official told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

Other U.S. military services formed part of the assault team, and it was not clear that any of the same SEALs were involved in both the Somalia and bin Laden raids even if they came from the same unit, known as SEAL Team Six.
link
As much as I love the potential jailings and executions, could you please not drop my name in the course of debate?

As for this -- what's illegal about it? Did you expect Somali authorities to find them and rescue them? As much as I am not a war hawk, I don't give a bugger about much when it comes to finding out citizens.
I guess he won't tolerate the abduction of our people unless their abducted in Iran or North Korea.

WTF is "demining"? More eco-wackjob shit?
Palladin Wrote:I think Obama should be charged with murder myself. There probably is enough evidence to convict Obama and the SEAL who obeyed the illegal orders.

The POTUS is supposed to follow the law like Tait was supposed to and the current AG would charge Tait with murder if he shot an unarmed man like we did Bin Laden. There is no lawful justification for cold blooded murder. I wouldn't waste my time trying.
"President Obama announces that Osama bin Laden is dead" Page 3, Post: #47
Jessica Buchanan, one of the two being held hostage, is an American citizen. And because the government of Somalia really was nonexistent to all intents and purposes, the US was well within its jurisdiction to use force to sace the life of its endangered citizen, should diplomacy fail. This is one case where the use of force overseas is more than adequate.

The only other entity that needed approval was Denmark, because the other hostage was Danish.

I don't see where this action is even remotely questioned.
To me this is a police function. The girl was a hostage, we found her and sent in agents to retrieve her.

The perps were shot, that's too bad for them, it is assumed they were armed. Hopefully their friends will be deterred from the next hostage taking.

The Bin Laden thing was different, we're at war with al qaeda and the POTUS gets to order unarmed folks being executed while he sits on a bema seat judging men like Tait who could have done the same.

Tait would be in Leavenworth right now had he shot any unarmed human in the face and been caught. That double standard might impress a European who is used to royalty, over here it doesn't impress me.
I have no problem with military personnel bringing such an event to a conclusion. Civilian law enforcement has absolutely no jurisdiction outside its boundary. Jefferson did the exact thing in ending the Barbary Pirates misconduct, early on.

And I totally agree with you Patrick, on the Bin Laden assassination. Pakistan was, and still is, officially an ally of ours. They also have a functioning government, and invading their boundary is illegal. Furthermore, we are not officially in a state of war. If we knew where Bin Laden was located we could have given the Pakis a Hobson's choice on the issue. And if they did not deliver him to us, we would be within our rights to cut off aid, stop trading with her, or some other means of punishing Pakistan for its failure to deliver the known criminal.

Again, "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You". That's about as logical, and Christian, as it goes.
(01-25-2012, 08:54 PM)Gunnen4u Wrote: [ -> ]As much as I love the potential jailings and executions, could you please not drop my name in the course of debate?

Also, what John said.
John L Wrote:And I totally agree with you Patrick, on the Bin Laden assassination. Pakistan was, and still is, officially an ally of ours. They also have a functioning government, and invading their boundary is illegal. Furthermore, we are not officially in a state of war. If we knew where Bin Laden was located we could have given the Pakis a Hobson's choice on the issue. And if they did not deliver him to us, we would be within our rights to cut off aid, stop trading with her, or some other means of punishing Pakistan for its failure to deliver the known criminal.
I would have to disagree with you on this one, John.

On September 21, 2001 George Bush told the American people: "The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends. It is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them."

Taking that excerpt from George Bush's address and an article from The Economist : What did they know? . That's enough there to make me a believer, John. Sorry.

Interesting quotes from the article:

Quote:...The fact that he had last been holed up not in some wretched mountain cave but in a specially built, fortress-like compound within a mile of a prestigious military academy, in a town bristling with Pakistani military men, is a damning detail to which Pakistan’s authorities are struggling to respond.

It is possible—just about—to imagine that Pakistan’s rulers, notably the revered military intelligence network, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), were too incompetent to spot the world’s most-wanted man hiding under their noses. On this reckoning, America’s spies were able, eventually, to track him to a compound known locally as “Waziristan Mansion” and then to deploy a team of 30 to 40 Navy Seals to kill him, whereas the local men, despite enjoying significant local, linguistic, cultural and other advantages, were outfoxed by al-Qaeda’s boss.

More likely, but no more attractive for the likes of the ISI, is that at least some in power in Pakistan knew that Mr bin Laden had been forced by American drone attacks to shift from a mountain hideout to this urban shelter. On this score Mr bin Laden (and probably others, such as the Aghan Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, who was reported earlier this year to have been taken by the ISI to Karachi for medical treatment following a heart attack) was being afforded some measure of protection by Pakistani officialdom. Why? Perhaps so that he could be used, one day, somehow to promote Pakistani interests among fighting groups in Afghanistan, or perhaps so that he could be used as leverage over the Americans on a “rainy day”, as one Afghan intelligence officer speculates...

...Barack Obama’s administration has wisely tried to bolster Pakistan’s civilian government, for example by handing over aid for development separately from the billions worth of military help it provides. And it has become increasingly critical of the Pakistani army, pressing it to take action against the Haqqani network, an insurgent group with bases in Pakistan that is responsible for much of the violence in eastern Afghanistan, and to crack down on Islamist terrorist groups, notably a collection known as the Punjabi Taliban. Mr Obama may now feel pressure from American voters to demand that Pakistan’s military men start co-operating much more: having described Pakistan as being home to the “cancer” of terrorism, the American leader may decide that putting greater pressure on Islamabad will bring more gains than prolonged years of large-scale fighting next door in Afghanistan...
Grizz, I think you are going to have to be a little bit more specific about what you disagree with.

You said "That's enough there to make me a believer". Ok, but a believer of what? That they did, or didn't, know about his whereabouts?
Reuters Wrote:American Jessica Buchanan, 32, and Poul Hagen Thisted, 60, of Denmark, humanitarian aid workers for a Danish demining group, were rescued three months after they were kidnapped on October 25 in the town of Galkayo in the semi-autonomous Galmudug region of the Horn of Africa country.

"The United States will not tolerate the abduction of our people and will spare no effort to secure the safety of our citizens and to bring their captors to justice," Obama said in a statement.

The rescue was carried out by forces that included members of the same elite Navy SEAL unit that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden last year in a raid on his compound in Pakistan, a U.S. official told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

Other U.S. military services formed part of the assault team, and it was not clear that any of the same SEALs were involved in both the Somalia and bin Laden raids even if they came from the same unit, known as SEAL Team Six.

Weren't they shot in a helicopter over Afghanistan a couple of weeks later? How many lives do they have?
(01-27-2012, 12:01 AM)John L Wrote: [ -> ]Grizz, I think you are going to have to be a little bit more specific about what you disagree with.

You said "That's enough there to make me a believer". Ok, but a believer of what? That they did, or didn't, know about his whereabouts?
I find it difficult to believe that Pakistan didn't know that bin Laden was in Abbottabad, a military town just north of Islamabad.

The article also referenced terrorists cells that goes over to east Afghanistan to raise ruckus.

If Pakistan is our ally, than we do not need any more enemies.

(01-27-2012, 06:27 AM)Grizzly Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-27-2012, 12:01 AM)John L Wrote: [ -> ]Grizz, I think you are going to have to be a little bit more specific about what you disagree with.

You said "That's enough there to make me a believer". Ok, but a believer of what? That they did, or didn't, know about his whereabouts?
I find it difficult to believe that Pakistan didn't know that bin Laden was in Abbottabad, a military town just north of Islamabad.

The article also referenced terrorists cells that goes over to east Afghanistan to raise ruckus.

If Pakistan is our ally, than we do not need any more enemies.

I completely agree with that Grizz. That is why we should not be subsidizing them with aid and other perks.

But I'm still trying to figure out what it is you disagree with.
The thing about this entire discussion to me is why we're even in this position. Look at us.

Having to play footsie with what is essentially a terrorist state and they even admitted they used the Taliban for strategic depth issues vis a vis India. You could make the same case with Saudi Arabia and frankly, watch for Egypt, they are rapidly turning to extremist Islam and we'll try hard to buy them off instead of just ignoring them!

Trying to be Rome when your people don't have Roman harshness won't work long term. We got away with it post WWII because the world was exhausted and near death, now that they aren't, our ability to control folks is waning, the reserve status of our dollar is going away as others try to replace it, etc.

Let's mind our business over here and not destroy what's left of us trying to be Rome. Then, we won't need to debate whether or not murdering unarmed folks is acceptable policy.

Just look at this F-35 program, how ludicrous this is becoming:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/...es-abroad/

Why? Because we're determined to manage the affairs of the entire fricking world and don't have the power of Rome to manage them.

Here's another example of our stupidity. What is not in this article is Obama "loaned" Petrobras $2billion to exploit these fields. No doubt someone he knows will benefit and so will he, just not the people of the nation. China and Brazil will benefit along with Obama and his cronies.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012...medium=RSS
What is interesting here Patrick, is the reputation of US made war making gear. If we take the time to make it, then it just has to be the very best there is, and others want some copies of it. Instead of delving into all the problems, cost over-runs, SNAFUS, and all-around problems, they plow ahead anyway.

Naturally the Soviets were the biggest offenders. But other countries are carrying this thing over, and the F-35 is going to be the next Turkey on the 'want' list. Of course it will have to be 'dumbed down' a little, in order to make it a bit sub-standard to the US brother. We should have taken our experience with piling complexity on, as exemplified by the 'swing wing' technology. Now, we are going whole hog with thinking we can take the Harrier, and adapt it into a super-jet. Forget the fact that it consumes fuel like no tomorrow, adds to aircraft weight, makes it more complex to maintain, yadda, yadda, yadda. Obviously the concept of KISS is no longer prevalent.

I better not get started on US military Turkeys, or I would be here all day typing this post. But the point is that we listen to Ike's cautionary speech about the Military Industrial Complex, nod our heads in agreement, and then proceed to do just the opposite. And guess who has to foot the bill for all this craziness?
The F-22 was recognized as an awesome platform, but, to save money we opted to go all out for the F-35 and here we are.
It looks like Vladimir Vladimirovich is hitting a bit close to home here. America really doesn't want to control everything: just what it deems important. S5
Yea, that's more accurate.
Beyond the irrelevance caught by the title of this thread, the introduction of Vlad "Mr. Muscles" Putin as an honest international observer is ludicrous. Shades of Boris Badanov disguised as Boris Godunov! When it comes to pirates and ransoms nothing has changed since the days of Pompey and Caesar. As for questioning the US Export-Import Bank's loan to Petrobras (the equivalent of a loan to the Brazilian government), any attempt to taint such as some sinister opportunism is but bunkum. Where does the tech and savvy for off-shore drilling at great depths come from if not from a little town called Houston in the remote hinterlands of Texas! Those $2 billion, and possibly $5, are tied to the acquisition of American manufactures in the exploration and extraction of petroleum so any attempt to paint such as a "sinister plot" for personal profit is hogwash. Or Palladin ar you having a Ron Paul moment and confusing the US Export-Import Bank with the IMF as did a certain Ron Paul back in 2002--see this embarrassing on-line tirade and notice the difference between the title and the content:

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=c...&Itemid=60

Eximbank has existed since 1934 and it did not disturb a certain Ronald Reagan one bit since his administration in 1983 pushed for the institution to be "fully competitive" as indicated by Public Law 92-126 (1971) so as to offset the "subsidies" granted by other national exporters so as to favor their goods.

For an analysis of the present objectives for Eximbank, see:

http://www.iie.com/publications/chapters...ie3004.pdf

One wonders at times when certain wonks start to nitpick whether they grasp just how ludicrous the contentions presented. President Bush was lambasted for the fiasco of Tora Bora and the "failure" to get Bin Laden at that moment; now, nitwits are blathering on about how dare the present administration eliminate the bastard simply because he hied across a border and apparently did so with the connivance of "purported" allies. Perhaps we will soon be reading a dissertation on how American "criminals" invaded Tripoli during the Jefferson administration!
DR,

If you take the time to read that original objection of mine, it was based on the fact that our King can order unarmed civilians shot dead, yet he would prosecute a soldier for shooting an unarmed civilian.

I have no more respect for Bin Laden than you do. I just dislike immensely living in a nation that allows the elitists to act this way while imprisoning naive kids under fire for the same, that's all.

Pages: 1 2