Thank you, Mr. President

[$tevie]

"The team who killed Osama used to be called Cheney assassination squad and smeared daily here and elsewhere. Now when Obama hires them they are heros. Obama did everything that liberals here have railed against all their lives."

This is called Putting Words Into People's Mouths and it is in no way how to win an argument. In fact, it is the sign of somebody who is losing and grasping at straws.

[Acer]

I don't know if Pakistan's sovereignty and the corresponding international law has really been violated here. We've been operating within their borders militarily with their permission for years, now. Yes, it's been increasingly begrudged, but it has not been revoked.

[rjmacs]

Acer wrote:
I don't know if Pakistan's sovereignty and the corresponding international law has really been violated here. We've been operating within their borders militarily with their permission for years, now. Yes, it's been increasingly begrudged, but it has not been revoked.

Well, it's a gray area. We have specific agreements (written, signed agreements) that specify the terms of our conducting military operations within Pakistan's borders. Because these documents are classified, none of us is in a position to say whether the agreements have been observed. What is clear is that Pakistan isn't going to protest or contest the action, and in the tradition of Common Law - no harm, no foul.

However, as a legal precedent, President Obama clearly did not deem it necessary to obtain Pakistan's consent for this operation - and the timeline makes it clear that even if Zardari had objected we would have acted. (That's one of the key reasons not to ask.) In this instance, this isn't a problem. However, there are arguably similar cases in which it could be a huge problem, so the precedent is troubling to me.

[Pam]

$tevie wrote:
"The team who killed Osama used to be called Cheney assassination squad and smeared daily here and elsewhere. Now when Obama hires them they are heros. Obama did everything that liberals here have railed against all their lives."

This is called Putting Words Into People's Mouths and it is in no way how to win an argument. In fact, it is the sign of somebody who is losing and grasping at straws.

It's not only putting words into people's mouths, but shows a clear lack of understanding. Elite forces weren't born under Bush. Nor do they sit back and question which orders to follow. When commanded to do a task they do the task. Period. It's how that power can be abused that has been questioned during Bush's term and in previous presidents' terms.

The notion that liberals and most definitely democrats are against black ops is wholly a manipulative lie constantly brought out by the right.

[Carnos Jax]

rjmacs wrote:
[quote=Acer]
I don't know if Pakistan's sovereignty and the corresponding international law has really been violated here. We've been operating within their borders militarily with their permission for years, now. Yes, it's been increasingly begrudged, but it has not been revoked.

Well, it's a gray area. We have specific agreements (written, signed agreements) that specify the terms of our conducting military operations within Pakistan's borders. Because these documents are classified, none of us is in a position to say whether the agreements have been observed. What is clear is that Pakistan isn't going to protest or contest the action, and in the tradition of Common Law - no harm, no foul.

However, as a legal precedent, President Obama clearly did not deem it necessary to obtain Pakistan's consent for this operation - and the timeline makes it clear that even if Zardari had objected we would have acted. (That's one of the key reasons not to ask.) In this instance, this isn't a problem. However, there are arguably similar cases in which it could be a huge problem, so the precedent is troubling to me.
My initial thoughts were like yours, the precedent is troubling. But considering that there was some level of general permission given to us from Pakistan, I'd like to think at worst we stretched things. Otherwise it would bring legitimacy to for example Iran's actions agianst the U.S. due to our reluctance to hand over the Shah.

[Grace62]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13264843

Here's a very good look at what newspapers are saying about this in Pakistan and India.

Bottom line, it's a major embarrassment for Pakistan. It reveals that they've either been incompetent, too afraid of al Qaeda to take action, or in collusion with OBL on at least some level.
Whatever the truth, and perhaps it's some combination of all those things, our relationship with that country is forever changed and things will look very different going forward. Let's hope the change is positive for both countries.

[OWC Jamie]

an awkward alliance with an awkward political scene in an awkward country.

Not just Pakistan didn't notice the non-goings-on in the "compound".
Close, but no cigar:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...ds-newsxml


years and years of intelligence and vigilance.
It's not like someone revived a cold case.

http://articles.cnn.com/2006-09-20/polit...M:POLITICS

[Grace62]

There would be no reason for US troops in the country to train Pakistani soldiers to be out doing intelligence and surveillance work in the surrounding neighborhood. And I seriously doubt that OBL was stopping by the military academy for tea.

That was the job of the Pakistani intelligence agency, and they failed.

I fully acknowledge that this took years of intelligence work, and I greatly appreciate that work. Had our gov't stayed focused on that, who knows how much sooner this situation could have been resolved.

[Mac1337]

rj, you seem to be fairly new to this side and I hope you can stay out of the mud. All of us are conflicted in one way or another and the fact that you actually say it is refreshing. I don't want to engage in personal attacks but there are people here who do nothing but follow me around, wait for my posts and then post wisecracks and insults. I try to remain consistent. When 10 years ago Bush said there is no sanctuary for terrorists and we are not going to get anybody's permission to come and get them, I liked it. When Obama actually does it, I like it too. You'd be hard pressed to find evidence that people here ever applauded what became the Bush Doctrine. In fact, it was credited for America to be hated all over. Are we liked now?

[haikuman]

rjmacs wrote:
[quote=Acer]
I don't know if Pakistan's sovereignty and the corresponding international law has really been violated here. We've been operating within their borders militarily with their permission for years, now. Yes, it's been increasingly begrudged, but it has not been revoked.

Well, it's a gray area. We have specific agreements (written, signed agreements) that specify the terms of our conducting military operations within Pakistan's borders. Because these documents are classified, none of us is in a position to say whether the agreements have been observed. What is clear is that Pakistan isn't going to protest or contest the action, and in the tradition of Common Law - no harm, no foul.

However, as a legal precedent, President Obama clearly did not deem it necessary to obtain Pakistan's consent for this operation - and the timeline makes it clear that even if Zardari had objected we would have acted. (That's one of the key reasons not to ask.) In this instance, this isn't a problem. However, there are arguably similar cases in which it could be a huge problem, so the precedent is troubling to me.
Goodhousekeeping requires taking out the trash/garbage...sometimes even if it is in one of your neighbors yard it needs to be done... disease and all manner of miscreants live within the garbage
of society... there will always be a need to remove the garbage and there will always be a need for courageous men to make the decisions, and more courageous men to undertake the task.

A good thing is just that... a good thing. Acceptance is a road cluttered with false purchase.
Perhaps in reality we just need to let go .......

Rudie

I can spell courageous