05-03-2011, 04:22 AM
rjmacs wrote:
[quote=Dakota]
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.
Thanks for engaging in an an adult dialog. You judge for yourself the caliber of posts that have followed yours. We agree on some and disagree on others. Let me take a few. When I said no warrants were needed, I was making a point that the for more than two years fighting terrorism was framed as a law enforcement problem. Following that model, we should have gone to the interpol and have them issue some kind of international warrant and then sit back for him to show up. That is a good topic for a college course but even Obama knew that is not the way to nab Bin Laden. As to the no sanctuary statement, a lot of people are opposed to that doctrine because the implication is just what we had; Invading other countries. With us or against us is the question that Pakistan will face in the coming weeks. The fact is you cannot harbor terrorists and then claim you are our ally. I liked it when Bush said it 10 years ago because it made so much sense. As to the intelligence, the courier lead was first developed at our detention facilities in 07 I believe. Reference to waterboarding is due to Peter King.