Thank you, Mr. President

[Black]

mick e wrote:
The Bush Doctrine was best served by keeping Bin Laden ALIVE.

Point/match.

[Mac1337]

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.

[john dough]

Some people have a hard time with reality. and will never, ever give credit where credit is due. They have been poisoned by misinformation, smears and bald faced lies and when something that they have been clamoring for years that they wanted to happen, happened under Obama's watch.

Bush had plenty of time to bring the fight to him, but he did not, as he was not too concerned, even 6 months after 9/11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o

Maybe there was a lot of brush to be cleared in Crawford. :dunno:

[Carnos Jax]

Dakota wrote: Thanks for engaging in an an adult dialog. You judge for yourself the caliber of posts that have followed yours...

Oh the irony...

[Greg]

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tells Newsmax the information that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden was obtained through “normal interrogation approaches” and says the notion that terrorist suspects were waterboarded at Guantanamo Bay is a “myth.”

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/DonaldRu.../id/394820

[john dough]

Carnos Jax wrote:
[quote=Dakota]Thanks for engaging in an an adult dialog. You judge for yourself the caliber of posts that have followed yours...

Oh the irony...
That will go about 10 miles over his head. He is too angry to think straight.

The more news that comes out about the Bush years, the worse they are looking (as if that were possible).

What a bunch of crooks.

[Mac1337]

rjmacs, this might be what you were asking. We will never know what methods were used but the fact that it was done at a rendition facility says something.

---
The revelation that intelligence gleaned from the CIA's so-called black sites helped kill bin Laden was seen as vindication for many intelligence officials who have been repeatedly investigated and criticized for their involvement in a program that involved the harshest interrogation methods in U.S. history.

"We got beat up for it, but those efforts led to this great day," said Marty Martin, a retired CIA officer who for years led the hunt for bin Laden.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/02...56674.html

[haikuman]

Thank you, Mr. President
Posted by: Dakota [PM] [Ignore this user]
Date: May 02, 2011 08:26PM
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.



There are spoken and unspoken, written and unwritten rules in situations like this. Making provocative statements to garner some attention is typical for you. :nuts:

[Gutenberg]

I am making myself a nice salad for lunch which I will have with some good homemade whole-wheat sourdough bread. I devised the recipe for the bread myself.

[haikuman]

Gutenberg wrote:
I am making myself a nice salad for lunch which I will have with some good homemade whole-wheat sourdough bread. I devised the recipe for the bread myself.

Make sure you clean the blade of the Jig Saw after slicing that sammich *(:>* and remember.....
Never never never disrespect the Jig Saw ~!~ :devil:

This Link goes well with your Sammich *(:>*
Sammich Material


Rudie *(:>*