How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Well that's all right then   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ]
 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Well that's all right then

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


50 posted 05-09-2011 07:18 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

....or else I'm just not clear enough in expressing my views. No problems, Bob. It even happened to cool hand Luke.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


51 posted 05-12-2011 09:57 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


“But there is a final development that caused headaches for radical Islam — the end of the American hysteria over the legality and morality of its own antiterrorism measures.

Although candidate Barack Obama was elected as the anti-Bush who promised to repeal the Republican president’s protocols and end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, President Obama did no such thing. He continued the Bush–Petraeus withdrawal plan in Iraq. He escalated in Afghanistan. He kept all the antiterrorism measures that he had once derided. And he expanded the Predator-drone assassination missions fivefold, while sending commandos inside Pakistan to kill — not capture or put on trial — bin Laden. He ignored most recommendations from Attorney General Eric Holder and guessed rightly that his own left-wing base would keep largely quiet.

The effect was twofold. America kept up the pressure on terrorists and their supporters. And the liberal opposition to our antiterrorist policies simply evaporated once Obama became commander-in-chief.

Some who once protested the removal of Saddam lauded the efforts to do the same to Qaddafi. Those who once sued on behalf of detainees at Guantanamo joined the government to ensure the Predator-drone targeted-killing program continued.

The chances in 2012 that the buffoonish Michael Moore — who once praised the Iraqi insurgents — will again be feted as a guest of honor at the Democratic National Convention, as he was in 2004, or that Cindy Sheehan will grab headlines for a second time, are zero.  

Polls show that Obama’s America is still just as unpopular among Middle Easterners as it was under George W. Bush. But now a much different media assumes that the problem is theirs, not America’s. In this brave new world, the American liberal community is now invested in the continuance of the once-despised Bush antiterrorism program and the projection of force abroad — and has little sympathy for foreign criticism of an American president.”


http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/267013/tough-times-radical-islam-victor-davis-hanson?page=2



Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


52 posted 05-12-2011 01:59 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Very interesting article...
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


53 posted 05-13-2011 12:43 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Mr. Davis’ prose remains lovely.  Sadly, his scholarship has suffered in his shift from history to polemics.

     He and I do agree that President Obama was elected as an anti-Bush President.  I do not remember him promising to do anything like such a sweeping thing as Mr, Davis ascribes to him “to repeal the Republican president’s protocols and end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq[.]”  Indeed this was one of the early liberal bones of contention not only with him, but with Hilary Clinton as well.  Neither candidate promised immediate withdrawal from Iraq; and Mr. Obama promised not only an extension of the conflict there but also a refocusing of the war in Afghanistan as well and a possible focus on Pakistan.  

     Mr. Davis is not talking about the same history to I was paying attention to when it went around the first time.  His continuation of the Bush timetable was upsetting to many Democrats at the time, and remains so today.  If the war in Afghanistan had been pushed to an appropriate conclusion the the first place, it is indeed possible that the whole question of any activity in Iraq would have been moot in the first place.  It is not Mr. Obama who made the mess in the first place; it is merely Mr. Obama whose job it became to clean it up.

     I have less liking for the anti-terrorism measures, I suspect, than Mr. Davis.  I am disgusted against them now and was disgusted against them when they were passed with the inexcusable help of democrats during the administration of President Bush Minimus.  Mr. Davis points out that President Obama once derided these measures, accurately enough, but fails to report that his attempts to roll them back were blocked at every possible point by the Republicans in both the Senate and in the Congress; and that the situation at the time was one in which a super-majority of 60 votes was needed to get anything past the rules of the Senate.

     That President Obama got as much by as he did was remarkable.  That he didn’t push harder on many issues was to my mind worthy of a great deal of criticism.  The issues that Mr. Davis mentions would be among them.

     It should be noted, however, that Mr. Davis at no point suggests that he was sad Mr. Obama had failed to get these measures repealed.  Mr. Davis’ general political position would, in fact, suggest otherwise; that he, like many of his right wing confederates of both parties are quite happy that these repressive measures remain in place.  I am, of course, happy to be shown to be wrong about this point, not only about Mr. Davis, but about the stances of many of my Right wing friends, who criticize President Obama for his terrible failure to get these laws repealed, and yet seem only too happy to have these same laws remain on the books themselves.

     Similar points should be raised about Predator drone missions, while have killed a great number of folks in Pakistan this year, and the mission to raid the Bin Laden compound.  Folks on the right have been pushing for this sort of thing for ten years or more; when they are accomplished by a centrist President — nominally a Democrat — the stampede of switching positions is as loud as it was among Stalinists in 1941 when the Germans invaded Russia, and all of a sudden the Germans suddenly turned from Good Guys to Bad Guys.

     Some of us Left wing Democrats don’t keep quiet about things like Civil Rights, Human Rights and torture.  Not when the violations are from the Right or the Left or the Center.  Sorry to break stereotype, but I do that sometimes.  I still hate torture, and I still want civil trials, and I still think that the place for criminals, if they’re convicted, is in jail, not on some sort of indefinite detention.  Fighting terrorists shouldn’t turn us into terrorists.

     Thank you, Walt Kelly.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


54 posted 05-13-2011 06:34 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

So does killing unarmed terrorists turn us into terrorists, murderers or both, Bob?
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


55 posted 05-13-2011 08:10 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Yes, Mike, probably both.  It does now, and it did then.  Democrat, Republican, left or right really doesn't have all that much to do with it.

     Some of them may have thought of themselves as terrorists.  I know that I thought of them that way. (If we're talking about Osama Bin Laden, that is.)  I suspect that many of them thought of themselves otherwise, and would have bristled at the characterization.  If we could have gotten beyond our mutual loathing, them for the West and we for them, then we might have managed to call each other names here and learned something from each other.

     Possibly I'm hoping for too much.

     As for Kadaffi, I don't think he's particularly worse than characters we've supported in the past.  The notion of Chiang Kai Shek as other than a gangster seems low comedy to me, for example, also the Brothers Diem in Viet Nam Del Sud and the various rulers we've supported through Central and South America — none of them seem to have been particularly wonderful people, and some of them have been owned outright by corporate interests including the mafia, as might be the case with Batista.

     Put them on top of a large amount of oil, and the game seems to change a bit.  A different set of rules seems to apply, and I can't say that I really understand exactly what they are as yet.  This seems to work for both Republican and Democratic administrations.

     The only way that I can figure to change the situation is to get the oil out of the equation.

     There will still be scarce resources to fight about, and they will include food and water, I suspect, in the near future, unless we can get the power situation (the foot-pounds sort of power is the sort I'm talking about here) worked out first.  

     That may be an over-long answer, Mike; but then the question seemed deceptively simple, and I thought you deserved my best attempt at an answer and not  a brush off or a sarcastic response.  If I'd taken more time, it would have been shorter, but I probably wouldn't have been able to complete it.  For some reason, I'm quite tired these days.  All my best.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


56 posted 05-13-2011 08:40 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     An additional point, that I should have mentioned above.  I believe that the blame falls upon the administration here, and not the line troops, who were put into a position where they did what they needed to do, and where they did it well.  I congratulate them on a mission well done.  Placed in a situation where they were required to kill or allow their friends to be killed, they could scarcely in conscience do otherwise.  And that doesn't even begin to consider the notion of their own lives being put at risk, and their own political views and their personal values and a whole host of other factors that are very important indeed.

     Responsibility begins at the top.  That's true in this administration as it was true in prior administrations.  In past administrations, however, responsibility seems to have been apportioned legally at the bottom, and very little, if any made it up the chain of command.  Perhaps we can change that in this situation and consider it for the prior situations as well.

     I think it unfortunate these events are likely to be seen as a coup for the country.  I find it ironic that the Right is in the position of having to attack these events, because they seem to be the fulfillment of a long cherished Right Wing dream of glory and retribution, and such actions have been called for by the right wing many times in the past, including by Ministers such as Pat Robertson in slightly different contexts (Hugo Chavez, wasn't it?).  The exclamations of shock seem a touch hollow, though from my point of view entirely justified.

     We need to repeal The PATRIOT ACT, which does not help the cause of freedom in this country.  

     It is unfortunate that, as near as I can understand it, the actions that President Obama undertook were not illegal, since Osama Bin Laden was not a foreign head of state, nor an American citizen, and all that was required was an Intelligence Finding letter signed by The President.  I believe that it's protocol for the letter to be reviewed by the appropriate congressional and senatorial committees, but I am not sure of that.

     Legal does not make it moral or even palatable.  It certainly took substantial risks with our relationship with a nuclear country.  Not good.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


57 posted 05-13-2011 09:20 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Placed in a situation where they were required to kill or allow their friends to be killed, they could scarcely in conscience do otherwise.  And that doesn't even begin to consider the notion of their own lives being put at risk, and their own political views and their personal values and a whole host of other factors that are very important indeed.

A nice attempt, Bob, but you know as well as everyone else that's not what happened there. Bin Laden was to be killed....and he was. Period. Was it legal? Well, I guess that depends on whether you call assassination legal or not. Is assassination legal if it is not performed on the head of a country?

For anyone expressing outrage against torture, they should be perfectly livid over this one.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


58 posted 05-13-2011 10:01 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Bin Laden was to be killed....and he was. Period.

The only thing I've really had time to follow on this issue was the President's speech and a bit of media commentary immediately following the speech. And what you're claiming, Mike, doesn't jibe with what I heard from them. Do you have any sources available confirming your claim? Or should we, instead, take it as your opinion?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


59 posted 05-13-2011 10:39 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Yes, Ron, of course I must present it as opinion and conjecture on my part, since I wasn't there to hear Obama give the order.

I base that opinion on fact and a little experience. First, Bin Laden was unarmed. There was a claim, offered quite weakly, that he may have made a threatening gesture which required him being shot. His wife literally charged one of the soldiers. She was shot in the leg. Bin Laden was shot in the head. These were not trigger-happy rookies on some small town police force. They were trained professionals. They shot an unarmed old man in the head, killing him instantly. `You prefer to believe that they did that on their own initiative, without orders from above? No, I don't think so, either.

Opinion, yes, but I believe the opinion has the proper foundation. The alternative is to believe that several highly trained Navy Seals could not subdue an unarmed man in a confined area without shooting him in the head. If they had wanted to take him alive, they could have easily. Instead he was shot in the one area which had the greatest probability of causing death.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


60 posted 05-14-2011 07:03 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     What part of me saying that the president should be brought up on war crimes charges jibes with the notion of me mot being livid, Mike?

    I can be livid at legal activities as well as illegal activities, and frequently am.

     The fact that I think that the President's activities were legal doesn't mean that I support them.  I offered support to the troops, not the mission.  I criticized the President for his moral position and not his legal position, which by U.S. law, as I understand it, is solid, and which by international law is not solid, as I understand it.

     This would, as I understand your party's position, generally place him solidly in your court.  He was acting in the interests of the United States, and not necessarily in accord with the law of the international community.  The Right Wing thought this position was swell when it came to heading off threats that it saw to the potential security of the country when President Bush acted and changed the long-standing U.S. Policy as not being the party to initiate first strike or unilateral strike.  I thought this was wrong then.  I still think it wrong.  I think President Obama was wrong.

     He was also operating within U.S. law.

     My acknowledgement of that is an acknowledgement of reality.  I don't need to be happy about reality to acknowledge it.  All I have to be is practical.  I haven't stepped off any bridges yet, and I still believe that I can't flap my arms and fly, much as I'd wish otherwise.

     It is not "a good try" to suggest that the President acted legally in accord with U.S. law.  As far as I know, it's the truth.  I don't have to like it, and it is certainly not in conflict with my stand against torture.  

     As for somebody's ability to call their shots on a moving target in a combat situation well enough to hit somebody in the leg and somebody else in the head, I simply don't know.  I haven't shot a gun in close to fifty years.  I have no idea what weapons were being used.  I have no idea what the rules of engagement were.  I have no idea what the actual perceptions of the levels of threat were among the shooters in the room at the time.  If one person had been advancing on the shooters rapidly at the time, that certainly would have made things more exciting.  I don't know to what extent that would have effected the shooting skill or judgement of other in the room.  With some people, it would have had a disorganizing effect — most police officers, for example, would have spiked an adrenaline rush that training would only have partially compensated for.  I like to think that S.F. candidates would be differently selected, but I don't know; and I do know that some people would only get more settled in such as situation — folks with a touch of psychopathy, for example, would only start to begin to feel normal at that point.

     Nevertheless, hitting a moving target is hard, and Osama Bin Laden did not want to be taken alive.

     I can tell you with absolute certainty, though, that I don't know, and I don't have enough data to even come close to knowing.  I don't expect you to substitute my estimation of the situation for yours, but you might understand why I continue to feel uncertain.

     Doesn't mean that I approve of the President's actions;  I don't.  Doesn't mean that I approve of torture.  I don't.

     Nor does it mean that you suddenly feel that torture and assassination should be dropped from the range of U.S. foreign policy, either, does it?  Not unless you actually say so.  And certainly not unless you say so about such actions taken by both political parties, past and present.

[This message has been edited by Ron (05-14-2011 07:24 PM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


61 posted 05-14-2011 08:00 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

It is not "a good try" to suggest that the President acted legally in accord with U.S. law.  As far as I know, it's the truth.  I don't have to like it, and it is certainly not in conflict with my stand against torture.  

I understand, Bob. You are hedging every statement with an out, such as "As far as I know..". Your paragraph about what may or may not have happened is also filled with "I don't know"'s.....and that's acceptable. No, you don't know and neither do I. The difference between us is that I am willing to use some type of reasoning to deduce what may be considered close to the truth and you prefer to simply state "I don't know" and move on. I don't blame you for doind so, since the other way points to assassination and Obama breaking the law.

Interestingly enough, in the middle of the "don't knows", you state Osama Bin Laden did not want to be taken alive.. Of course there is no way you can know that. Think of the pulpit he could have had as a prisoner and the mayhem that could have resulted. (I feel that Obama may have thought the same thing, hence the desire not to have it happen). You must be arriving at that conclusion by the same conjecture you refuse to use on the events in the killing of Bin Laden
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


62 posted 05-14-2011 11:13 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Which U.S. law do you assert the President has broken, Mike?  The President is forbidden from Assassination of foreign heads of state.  Bin Laden does not and never has fallen into that category.  I haven't shied away from saying that The President was wrong.  I don't now.  I ask you to specify which U.S. law he has broken.

     I further ask that you tell us why you find anything wrong with it, since the man was clear that he was going to pursue the war into Pakistan during his campaign.  This was one of the reasons that many liberals were upset by his stance.  Both his and Hilary's, actually, despite the retroactive attempt to rewrite history made by the Republicans since that time.  This is one of the reasons why I've been calling the man Republican Lite since his election.  Hadn't you noticed?  And one of the reasons why I've been upset with his human rights stance as well.

     You should understand why I'm upset.

     What puzzles me is why you're upset, since what he's doing is just about all a good republican could ask for as far as foreign policy goes?  Active, nasty and belligerent in the right oil rich areas of the world.

     The only thing that would seen to be bothersome is that he hasn't alienated the rest of the world in the process, and there have been some precedents for that in the past.  Republicans don't actually have to turn the world against them and against the United States as well.  Democrats can do that as well, as LBJ well demonstrated.

     So, what are the U.S. laws that you assert the President has violated, Mike?

     I don't like the killing, but with an intelligence finding signed by the president, my understanding is that it is legal so long as it isn't a foreign head of state.  I await your correction.  

     What U.S. law do you say he has violated?
    
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


63 posted 05-14-2011 11:43 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Bob, is it your assertion that one may order the murder of another, as long as he is not a head of state, without breaking the law?? Heck, why didn't we just kill Capone, instead of getting him on tax evasion? He was responsible of murders, extortion, and all kinds of nasty things.

Why am I upset about it? Did I say I was? I shed no tears over Bin Laden and, truth be known, I'm glad he is dead. My beef is not with that.

My beef is with sanctimonious people who claim waterboarding is torture, condemn a president who allowed it, berate an entire political party over it...and have nothing to say about a president who orders murder. My beef is with people who claim everyone is entitled to due process of law and then have nothing to say about a president who condemns a man to death with no due process whatsoever. My beef is with people who allow their political affiliations to dictate their morality, with those who condemn waterboarding and condone homicide. That's where my beef lies, sir. I've heard of no one who died from waterboarding but I can name at least one who died from a bullet in the head.

If you want to give Obama a pass for Bin Laden, that's fine by me and I'll applaud along with you...but you lose the moral right to complain about Bush, the Republicans, and Gitmo. You don't get it both ways...

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


64 posted 05-15-2011 11:36 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


The men had cameras on their helmets sending it back live to command,
(and I recognized a few of those at HQ in the picture).  You think if, as professionals,
they thought they would be up on charges for shooting an unarmed man they would have
pulled the trigger?

There’s an actual scene in the old “World At War” series that was run on PBS
decades ago where an officer is talking to men about to land on a Japanese held island:

“Let me repeat what the general said.  If you have to run any kind of risk
to get a prisoner, don’t get em!”

Bin Laden was dead the moment he didn’t pop up naked with his hands in the air.

It’s the hypocrisy that’s risible.


.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


65 posted 05-15-2011 02:06 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Yes, Ron, of course I must present it as opinion and conjecture on my part, since I wasn't there to hear Obama give the order.

I wasn't there, either, Mike. However, I was there (so to speak) when the President told us what the mission parameters were. Capture if possible, kill if there is resistance. I see no reason to believe that wasn't the truth.

Of course, some clarification of "resistance" might be justified. On American soil, for example, we don't expect the police to fire unless they're in fear for their own safety. Should we hold Navy Seals to the same standard? I tend to think probably not, but I'm open to argument on that. I suspect that moving an intractable prisoner across foreign soil covertly might be difficult?

I think John is right. If bin Laden had offered no resistance, he likely would still be alive.

quote:
Interestingly enough, in the middle of the "don't knows", you state Osama Bin Laden did not want to be taken alive. Of course there is no way you can know that.

Actually, Mike, I think there is a way Bob could reasonably know that. You and me, too. We can listen to what bin Laden has told us in that regard. He claimed, repeatedly and quite vociferously I believe, that he would never be taken alive. Again, I see no reason to believe that wasn't the truth.

Still, Mike, in spite of the justifications, I see your point. And I think it revolves around earlier discussions we've had as to whether terrorists should be seen as criminals or as enemy combatants. If bin Laden was simply a criminal, like your Al Capone analogy might suggest, our government should have followed procedures and tried to have the man arrested and extradited. There's a few potential sticklers, like the difference between a serial killer and a mass murderer, and of course Pakistan's willingness or ability to arrest and extradite, but those are details in my opinion, not foundational issues.

On the other hand, if bin Laden was an enemy combatant? That's clearly a horse of an entirely different color.

If we follow that road a little farther it will take us to the detainees in Gitmo. If we see them as criminals they clearly should be given their day in court. Or be released for lack of evidence. The alternative, however, isn't to see them as enemy combatants, Mike, but rather to see them as former enemy combatants; i.e., prisoners of war. That, too, is a horse of a different color.

If a handful of Navy Seals started shooting Gitmo prisoners in the head because they "resisted" their continued detention, Mike, I think just about everyone would be outraged. Their situations simply are not comparable to bin Laden's situation. As prisoners, whether criminal or combatant, they are entitled to humane treatment. Not because they deserve it, but because WE deserve to be a humane people who do what is right even when it costs us to do so. Torture isn't about "them" and never has been. It's about us.

For what it's worth, I still prefer to see domestic terrorists as criminals. To me, bin Laden was indeed no different than Al Capone. And so, to answer your original question, Mike, I suspect we would have killed Capone had he resisted during any of his arrest attempts. I don't know what level of resistance it would have taken for the police to feel justified putting a bullet in Capone's head, but I have no doubt such a level existed. As it clearly did with bin Laden.

Whether Capone or bin Laden, you might well find me arguing against the use of excessive or unnecessary force. Or not, depending on circumstances and the safety of others present. What you would never find me arguing against, however, is humane treatment once Capone, bin Laden, or the prisoners at Gitmo were taken into custody. Killing someone because you must is not the same as torturing someone because you want to. Accepting the former doesn't mean I have to accept the latter.

That's not hypocrisy, guys. It's simple logic.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


66 posted 05-15-2011 03:40 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Actually, Mike, I think there is a way Bob could reasonably know that.

Simply because he had said that? If you had a nickel for every criminal who had said that and then surrendered without a fight, you would be rich. You use the word reason? Why, then, has no reason been applied to what may have happened in that room? You speak of resistance without even knowing what that resistance was. You apply that same unknown resistance to an unarmed Capone being shot dead, still not knowing what that resistance was. As a matter of fact, no one has even expounded that point. I read somewhere that Bin Laden may have made a move to resist.....that's about it. Reporters don't even touch it. Doesn't that strike you as a bit strange, Ron?

Forgive me, but I believe that you, Bob and all the others know exactly what happened and it had nothing to do with Bin Laden's supposed unknown resistance. Paint it any way you like. I'm not going to believe that either one of you believe that Bin Laden was executed for that reason.

btw..."Killing someone because you must" is indeed hypocricy, in this case.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


67 posted 05-15-2011 04:03 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     At the risk of boring you with repetition, Mike, and apparently John as well, exactly what part of my statement that I think the President should be charged with war crimes  sounds to you like I think he is faultless?  I also said that I think that President Bush should be as well.  Is there something inconsistent about that?

quote:

Bob, is it your assertion that one may order the murder of another, as long as he is not a head of state, without breaking the law??



     I take it that you can't find any particular United States law that the man did in fact break, then, Mike?  My understanding is that the President can sign an intelligence finding that allows for such murders, yes, though not of heads of state.  I don't believe that this is in like with international law.  I don't think this is moral, and I don't agree with it, though my understanding is that you do.

quote:

Heck, why didn't we just kill Capone, instead of getting him on tax evasion? He was responsible of murders, extortion, and all kinds of nasty things.



     There is a domestic law against murder, Mike.  Several of them, in fact. The government occasionally attempts to get around them.  The result tends to be mixed, however, and domestically the government tries to avoid such things.  Both ends of the political spectrum have martyrs to such governmental "accidents".  Some of them, perhaps all of them, may actually be accidents, for that matter; but you won't convince large parts of the population of that.

      So, in short, Mr. Capone was a citizen, and he was living in the United States.  I think that's the difference.

quote:

Why am I upset about it? Did I say I was? I shed no tears over Bin Laden and, truth be known, I'm glad he is dead. My beef is not with that.



     You speak as though your beef is with that.

quote:

My beef is with sanctimonious people who claim waterboarding is torture, condemn a president who allowed it, berate an entire political party over it...and have nothing to say about a president who orders murder.



     Again, Mike, what part about suggesting trial for war crimes for President Obama as well as President Bush don't you understand?

     I don't know that President Obama has personally ordered Waterboarding, by the way.  Perhaps you have forgotten the CIA people who demanded and got step by step directives to do waterboarding from the white house in the presence of the President during the last year or so of the last administration?  I would forget it if I could.  As I recall, we discussed it in these pages.

quote:

My beef is with people who claim everyone is entitled to due process of law and then have nothing to say about a president who condemns a man to death with no due process whatsoever.



     Do you mean a trial?

     I would wish that a trial was necessary for such a thing, and that this sort of due process was required for any death sentence.  You have not been paying attention to the various provisions of The PATRIOT ACT and some of the national security laws, have you?


quote:

My beef is with people who allow their political affiliations to dictate their morality,



     Got to say, I don't think those folks are real swell either, whoever the heck you might be talking about....


quote:

with those who condemn waterboarding



     Why would you have a beef with the GIs who fought the Nazis and the Japanese in World War II and the ones who fought the Communists in Korea and Vietnam, Mike?  You fought in Vietnam yourself.  You were outraged when our guys were waterboarded to get them to confess to crimes they didn't commit then.  And rightfully so.

quote:

and condone homicide. That's where my beef lies, sir.



       But you, yourself, were just saying that you have no beef with homicide, if you're murdering the people your party wants killed, weren't you?  My head is spinning here.

quote:
    
I've heard of no one who died from waterboarding



     And where have you checked?

quote:

but I can name at least one who died from a bullet in the head.



     Do you mean Osama Bin Laden?  I think the murder was wrong, but legal.  You tend to the murder was right, and would have supported it if it had been done by a Republican President.  If I have the matter understood correctly.  You may also think the murder was illegal under the assumption that U.S. domestic law somehow applies on foreign sovereign territory.

     And of course I am assuming that you meant none of the above to apply to me personally.  

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


68 posted 05-15-2011 04:05 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

At least the cartoonists got it right...





Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


69 posted 05-15-2011 04:10 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I think the murder was wrong, but legal.

An incredible statement, Bob.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


70 posted 05-15-2011 04:26 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
You speak of resistance without even knowing what that resistance was.

quote:
btw..."Killing someone because you must" is indeed hypocricy, in this case. (emphasis added)

If I don't know what resistance was offered, Mike, why would you pretend that you do?

If you are upset that bin Laden was killed, we can talk about how much resistance would be necessary to justify the military actions that were taken. If, as you've said, you are only concerned with the seeming hypocrisy of accepting the death of a fugitive versus the torture of helpless prisoners, I'm not entirely sure how the resistance bin Laden offered is relevant?
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


71 posted 05-15-2011 04:49 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Ah, Mike, perhaps you suffer under the illusion that legality and rightness are identical.  I believe that notion is indeed incredible.  Also frequently wrong.  Simply because the Stamp Act, for example, was legal, didn't make it right.  Simply because debtor's prisons were legal didn't make them right.  Simply because slavery was legal didn't make it right.  Simply because murder is legal doesn't make it right.

     In your own set of values, simply because murder is illegal, doesn't make it wrong, though I would disagree.  For example, you could well be in favor of killing a convicted murderer in a non-death penalty state, right?  That is, you would be in favor of something that was, by definition, murder and illegal, and would insist that it was right.

     I may have you wrong on this, of course, but I think not.  You probably wouldn't ACT on it, but you would refrain because punishment or essential indifference would intervene between your action and your sense of what was right.  I think, of course.

     Not so incredible, in other words.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


72 posted 05-15-2011 04:53 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. told a Senate committee Wednesday that the shooting of Osama bin Laden was “justified as an act of national self-defense.”

Well, Ron, it would appear that Holder is not even carrying on the illusion that Bin Laden resisted or that the SEAL's lives were in danger. He speaks of "national self-defense", which means that the orders were to kill Bin Laden, regardless. That phrase of acting in "national self-defense" can really open up a bucket of worms, can't it??

Does it have anything to do with the criticism of Bush and Gitmo? Yes, to me, it does. I wonder what the reaction would be if this were Bush ordering the hit on Obama and shooting him, unarmed? Somehow I think it might be a little different...so what's new?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


73 posted 05-15-2011 04:55 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Simply because murder is legal doesn't make it right.

That's the point, Bob. Murder is not legal.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


74 posted 05-15-2011 07:25 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

Those of us who have been in law enforcement and tactical training for the past two decades can remember when the military came to us to learn CQB tactics. It was, at the time, a relatively new change in battle tactics for the military when terrorism and the urban battlefield came to the fore.

As cops and soldiers trained together, we learned from each other. The military took our CQB tactics to war and developed some enhancements of their own. ..........

What strikes me about the operation to take out bin Laden is that SEAL Team Six focused on fundamental CQB operations. The intelligence gathered from various sources was used to formulate an assault plan, the plan was rehearsed, and the plan was executed as designed.

The compound was cleared room by room just the way we have been doing SWAT operations for decades. When bin Laden refused to surrender and placed a woman in front of him as a shield (coward!) a shot to his head ended the short standoff.

Reportedly, twenty three soldiers started the operation and twenty three boarded the Blackhawks to return home. The terrorist didn’t fare so well. Obviously they didn’t have a plan, nor did they rehearse and execute their tactics as well as the American warriors. If they did, the outcome might have been different.

This al Qaeda security force had five years to prepare for and train in this compound for such an attack. Seal Team Six reportedly had only five days with their intelligence on the operation however, SEAL Team Six trains every day on basic fundamentals of all their collective battle tactics.

It’s this concept that keeps cops and soldiers safe every day as they conduct tactical operations. Preparation and the focus on fundamentals are key to conducting safe CQB operations.
http://www.policeone.com/SWAT/articles/3649519-SEAL-Team-Six-and-police-SWAT-tacti cs-of-CQB/



quote:

You believe Howard Wasdin when he says he knows why Osama bin Laden is dead.

"The guy either had a weapon, was going for a weapon or was otherwise doing something he shouldn't have been doing," Wasdin said. "That's why he got shot."

He should know - because he has been a member of a strike force so exclusive, so secretive that the U.S. government will not even acknowledge its existence.

Wasdin, a Boynton Beach native, is a former sniper for SEAL Team 6, the highly specialized force that executes surgical-strike missions such as last weekend's takedown of the Al-Qaeda chief.
.......
SEAL Team 6 training in close-­quarters combat goes beyond anything they would have experienced in qualifying to be a SEAL - and it's what separates them into ultra-elite status. They train to make split-second decisions in tight spaces as they move from room to room, up and down stairs, honing when to shoot and when to hold fire.

"Because you never know what's on the other side of that door," Wasdin said.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/the-secret-seals-boynton-n ative-provides-inside-peek-1462435.html?printArticle=y




This was an operation that was fundamentally pursued as a law-enforcement action.  The 'decision' to shoot Bin Laden was indeed no 'decision' that was made pre-meditatively -- but one of the rigors of training CQB practitioners have drilled into their heads -- shoot/don't shoot -- it's a split second choice made based on the behaviors of the perps.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Well that's all right then   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors