Thank you, Mr. President

[Mac1337]

Thank you Mr. President. I am sure I am speaking for all members here when I thank you for,

- Not letting international law stand in the way of American security.
- Not feeling the need to go to the UN.
- Entering Bin Laden's residence without a search warrant or court order.
- Not letting sovereignty of another nation stop us from pursuing our national interest.
- Using intelligence obtained at Gitmo, reportedly through waterboarding, to identify the couriers.
- Ordering shoot to kill human shields without concern for international outcry.
- Letting countries know that they can't harbor terrorists and expect their sovereignty respected.
- Denying sanctuaries to terrorists wherever they might be.
- Letting countries know that they are either with us or against us in the fight against terrorism.
- Not caring what the world thinks about us after the raid.

[rgG]

[rjmacs]

Dakota wrote:
Thank you Mr. President. I am sure I am speaking for all members here when I thank you for,

- Not letting international law stand in the way of American security.

Well, there is a pretty strong argument that this action was not entirely legal, so i'm with you here.

Dakota wrote:
- Not feeling the need to go to the UN.

On the other hand, you can make a pretty compelling argument that U.N. Resolution 1386 covers the U.S. action against Al Qa'eda and Osama Bin Laden.

Dakota wrote:
- Entering Bin Laden's residence without a search warrant or court order.

Well, that's just a little silly, since no U.S. court has jurisdiction over Pakistan, and there's no such thing as a search warrant that would apply.

Dakota wrote:
- Not letting sovereignty of another nation stop us from pursuing our national interest.

See point #1 regarding legality.

Dakota wrote:
- Using intelligence obtained at Gitmo, reportedly through waterboarding, to identify the couriers.

Do you have a citation on this? I haven't seen this reported... Even so, using illegitimately obtained intelligence is not equivalent, morally or legally, to authorizing illegal interrogation techniques.

Dakota wrote:
- Ordering shoot to kill human shields without concern for international outcry.

U.S. military rules of engagement virtually never prevent soldiers coming under live fire in close quarters from returning fire. If you know otherwise, i'm curious to hear about it. The SEALS were authorized to shoot to kill hostiles, i.e. people with weapons. They were never authorized to kill civilians intentionally, but that's the tragedy of a human shield; it forces someone acting in self-defense to kill an innocent. All the same, you have a point - the President sent SEALS in with orders to shoot to kill, knowing that civilians might be caught in the cross-fire.

Dakota wrote:
- Letting countries know that they can't harbor terrorists and expect their sovereignty respected.

Again, point #1. But you have a valid point here - President Obama has made it clear that he's willing to violate the rules in extraordinary circumstances.

Dakota wrote:
- Denying sanctuaries to terrorists wherever they might be.

Who could have a problem with this?

Dakota wrote:
- Letting countries know that they are either with us or against us in the fight against terrorism.

Now i really didn't hear him say this. Did you? Or is it something you inferred from his speech and actions?

Dakota wrote:
- Not caring what the world thinks about us after the raid.

Actually, the extreme trouble the administration went to to emphasize that Osama Bin Laden received Muslim burial preparations indicates to me that they care a lot what the world thinks. Also, the fact that they didn't take any of the other people at the compound with them, nor any bodies other than OBL's. There's a lot here that says they care about how this plays on the international stage, probably in part because of Point #1.

[john dough]

You are going to have a heart attack one day from all of the pent up anger you have.

[$tevie]

I cannot get over how upset Dakota is that bin Ladin is dead.

[Carnos Jax]

It's telling that all posters on the subject of OBL's death, regardless of their political leanings, seemed to be content with what happened.

I really didn't expect even Dak to behave like this, it just about convinces me he's a troll, nothing less. He really doesn't care for dialogue, just the opportunity to vent hate. He must be an unpleasant person to be around in real life, sad...

[Mac1337]

$tevie wrote:
I cannot get over how upset Dakota is that bin Ladin is dead.

No, it is just that I am not going to sit around and watch you applaud Obama continue what amounts to a continuation of Bush Doctrine after years of railing against it. Obama has no use for your way of thinking because what works in the real world is the aggressive use of American might, not nervous hand wringing you are so fond of.

[mattkime]

>>No, it is just that I am not going to sit around and watch

I think you're going to be squirming over this one for a long time.

No matter what contortions you go through to prove yourself correct.

[Carnos Jax]

Yeah, continuation of the 'Bush Doctrine', you keep believing that fantasy. It's amazing the kind of constructs your mind creates to cope with reality. You must have a very fragile mind.

[mick e]

The Bush Doctrine was best served by keeping Bin Laden ALIVE.