Daily Kos: Don't Apologize, Greenwald...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/09/974483/-Dont-Apologize,-Greenwald-Dont-Back-Down

MON MAY 09, 2011 AT 09:56 AM PDT
Don't Apologize, Greenwald. Don't Back Down
bydavid mizner

Not that there's much chance of that. Greenwald's proven to be one of the more fearless pundits, and he has an independence that allows him to say controversial things.

In case you hadn't heard, GG's run into some trouble here (elsewhere, too, I assume) for suggesting that if the U.S. assumes the right to assassinate anyone it so chooses, then our enemies could choose to do the same to President Obama.

Some people here have responded with Have-You-No-Shame horror while others, while acknowledging that he has a point, argue that he should have chosen his words more carefully.

But I think he chose his words with utmost care. They were designed to expose in stark terms the shaky moral and legal footing of the U.S's claim that it can basically do whatever the hell it wants in the name of FIGHTINGEVIL.

MORE AT LINK (Read before posting)

Have You No Shame, Greenwald?




Let me answer that: Fuck, and I mean FUCK Greenwald with his illogical ass!

Deep breaths.

Sid

that assassinating foreign heads of state is illegal is the fear that our head of state will be so targetted.

:shrug:

he is the head of a killing machine.....

If assassination is allowed for anyone, then it is allowed for everyone. Everyone who is able to do it is suddenly allowed to do it.

Whether or not you are the head of a nation would be merely rationalization. It would be a way for certain people to say "It's legitimate for me to kill whomever I want, but not for you to do the same." But Everyone always comes up with excuses to give themselves permission while denying it to everyone else.

The only sure way to prevent assassination from having legitimacy is to make sure that it's not legitimate for Anyone. Including yourself.

Any exception allowing any assassination opens up the floodgate and makes all assassinations equally legitimate in the end.

respectfully!

But now that the head of one army has assassinated someone, anyone capable of carrying out an assassination is likely to be thinking about it.

Just because you can rationalize reasons why you only think Obama can or should be allowed to assassinate, doesn't mean that those other people can't rationalize just as well, all the reasons why they can and should be able to assassinate too.

But in the end, if anyone succeeds in assassinating someone else, then we'll be debating it again. Until then, it's all academic.

The winners of every war always make their own assassinations legitimate, and make the assassinations committed by the losers illegitimate. But whether they succeed in labeling an assassination legitimate or not, the victims are still dead. Once the first nation declares that assassination is a legitimate method for fighting a war, others can follow suit.

The US just announced that assassination is a legitimate way to fight.

Just like we announced during the Bush administration that Torture was legitimate, and proceeded to torture thousands of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. And just like we have been routinely turning people over to local authorities to have them tortured even well into the current administration even though Obama has said that we do not torture or support torture.

We are fortunate that our use of Torture has not yet come back to haunt us. But it still could. And if it does, will anyone doubt that it was our own use of torture that led to it?

If assassination now comes back into use as a favored military method, will anyone really think that our use of torture had nothing to do with it?

it was self defense....we needed to kill him to protect our country....we are at war with the terrorist and bin Laden was certainly one of them....THANK GOD WE KILLED BIN LADEN!

:shrug:

Most Americans don't want to admit it, but it is a fact that our government has killed far more innocent civilians than bin Laden ever did. If the people of other nations applied the same logic you just did to justify killing Americans it would be a very deadly situation.

say the same thing about us. And we've killed far more of their people than Bin Laden killed of ours. They too could call it self defense ... they could say that this country declared war on them for no reason, which would be true, and that the head of this country and the heads of our allied partners, Britain et al are certainly a threat to their national security.

Is there some reason why this isn't obvious to you?

that our use of torture and targeted hits had nothing to do with it. Stunningly enough, most of this board would apparently agree. If it happened before lunch, it's forgotten by dinnertime in the U.S.A. And even if it wasn't forgotten by then, I'm sure our astounding sense of national exceptionalism will find a way to pull through.

I can't tell you how outraged it makes me that my daughter's generation will be the ones dealing with the chickens eventually coming home to roost (or can we not use that phrase any longer, post-Ward Churchill? Who, btw, was completely and totally right). And when that eventually happens, 90% of the country will say it was because they're subhuman evil Moo-slims, or because they hate our "freedom."



:banghead:

Jeez

what's so difficult about that? if america wants to be respected, it should respect the rule of law.

He was a mass murderer. America is respected, and part of that respect is having the guts to go in and take bin Laden out. That was trial enough, more than he gave.

and nobody is trying to turn OBL into a martyr.
If anything, the mode of his execution will promote that idea in some (foreign) people's minds.

The guy declared war on the US. He's been funding attacks before and after 9/11. He brags about it.

He is the leader of a military force determined to kill Americans.

In war, you can kill an enemy general and you don't need a trial.

Can you cite it?

Would that have made you feel more cozy?

we do not want our troops to be tortured if captured.

But that was when wiser heads were making policy. They had the ability to think. Now all wisdom has been thrown to the winds and anything goes.

Greenwald did not say anything that should have people grabbing their smelling salts. He is simply pointing out that the US cannot have the attitude that what's okay for them, is NOT going to be okay for others.

He should not back down, in fact maybe he needs to further clarify the problem since the usual suspects don't seem to get it.

so that our troops are less likely to suffer it at the hands of our enemies.

Especially when you're correct.

What's he correct about: Having a twitter meltdown?

Who knew this fucking clown was going to lose it over bin Laden's death?

On edit, reminds me of his last meltdown and apology:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

to see the attacks being made on DUers who have opinions that some here disagree with. I thought, btw, that it was against the rules here to insult DUers.

Greenwald is correct, just as others who pointed out this problem when Bush was using torture. He has zero to apologize for, and he's not the only one who has pointed out the fallacy and the potential for blowback when a country that claims to be a leader of the civilized world, acts in ways that are far from civilized.

No one has to be a 'bot' to see the truth in that. And no one here had a problem seeing it when Bush was president. Now, all of a sudden people are supposed to change the opinions they had back then.

How about we try NOT questioning the motives of anyone who disagrees with us? The "OMG yur a repub troll" shit needs to stop.

that this place is overun by rightwing trolls.

the world is now getting the message that when someone is upset with a world leader, eg, this president, they have the same right this country does to take out anyone who has harmed their country. It is a very dangerous precedent that has been set.

Same goes for torture. Now with all the rules of war ignored by the US, no one can demand that the Geneva Conventions be observed regarding any American soldiers who are captured.

If you cannot see the danger to our heads of state and troops, which btw, was pointed out over and over again during the Bush years as he initiated the disrespect for International law, maybe you need to think a little more about it.

Greenwald has a brain, he is not blinded by politics. And he has zero to apologize for.

It seems our foreign policy is being written now by Blackwater. And as in the past when we ignored the civilized rules set up, NOT so much to protect the bad guys, but for our own sake, there have been consequences.

Can't understand how blind people are and then they'll be whining if anything happens, wondering 'why'. We have set a new standard, Greenwald pointed it out, correctly.

"Same goes for torture. Now with all the rules of war ignored by the US, no one can demand that the Geneva Conventions be observed regarding any American soldiers who are captured."

Obama is "setting a standard" for torture? Absurd.

"Greenwald has a brain, he is not blinded by politics. And he has zero to apologize for."

Greenwald comes off as some envious obssessive asshole, getting rattled by everything from photo diaries to the death of bin Laden.

If he has a brain, maybe it went dead in trying to equate Obama with bin Laden and continuing to draw parallels between the leader of a terrorist organization and the leader of a country.

And it follows directly from the argument that the US is at war with Al Qaida.

This is what happens when you dignify criminals by declaring war on them.

anyone drawing the parallel is full of shit.

Do you believe that bin Laden is equivalent to the leader of a country?

America exceptionalism or not is immaterial.

Anwser the question: Do you believe that bin Laden is equivalent to the leader of a country?

Almost a week of handwringing by Greenwald and he can't make a case that the action was illegal, immoral or otherwise without making false equivalencies. In fact, even Pakistan considers bin Laden's death justice.

The US, I am told, considers itself at war with Al Qaida. He was the leader of Al Qaida. It's not that difficult of a concept. It's not a false equivalency in any way unless you throw out the rationale that allowed us to go into Pakistan in the first place, which you most likely don't want to do.

"The US, I am told, considers itself at war with Al Qaida. He was the leader of Al Qaida. It's not that difficult of a concept. It's not a false equivalency in any way unless you throw out the rationale that allowed us to go into Pakistan in the first place, which you most likely don't want to do."

So in order for this argument to work you need to invoke the WOT? And because al Qaeda declared a so-called war against the U.S. that means bin Laden is equivalent to leader of a country?

Really?

Havens are not countries, bin Laden is not the leader of Afghanistan or Pakistan.

I can only guess that you DO believe that the President does have the right to kill Americans without judicial review. The reason I bring that up is that it is hard to dig through all the name calling to find anything of substance to discuss with you.

Do you believe that the American President has the right to kill Americans far from any battlefield with no judicial review?

"I can only guess that you DO believe that the President does have the right to kill Americans without judicial review."

Well, I can guess that you believe yourself and all Americans to be the same as someone who renounced his citizenship and is actively engaged in carrying out attacks on the U.S.

RW worthy spin: Obama wants to kill Americans.

CCR Attys Who Represented Al Aulaqi Father in Challenge to CIA JSOC Kill List Denounce Strike

http://www.ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/ccr-attys-who-represented-al-aulaqi-father-challenge-cia-jsoc-kill-list-denounce-strike

that release doesn't say anything about Obama wanting to "kill Americans."

Additionally, the CCR can raise qustion, that doesn't mean these questions cannot be challenged:

it's very easy to provide more.

Here is Maria LaHood on Democracy Now!

U.S. Assassination Campaign Continues as CIA Drone Targets U.S.-Born Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen

The Obama administration launched a drone strike in Yemen last week in an attempt to assassinate a U.S.-born Muslim cleric who has never been convicted of a crime. Anwar al-Awlaki survived the attack, but two suspected members of al-Qaeda died. It was reported to be the first U.S. drone strike in Yemen in nine years. “It’s illegal to kill a U.S. citizen in Yemen, outside of armed conflict, without any due process,” says Maria LaHood of the Center for Constitutional Rights. The attempted assassination of al-Awlaki comes just days after U.S. special forces executed Osama bin Laden and NATO planes bombed Libyan leader Col. Muammar Gaddafi’s compound, killing his son and three grandchildren.

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/5/9/us_assassination_campaign_continues_as_cia

...they're welcomed to make their case.

Good thing Osama bin Laden was a terrorist and not a U.S. citizen. Now he's dead.

Still, it appears that the arguments are shifting from being glad he's dead and simply preferring that he be taken alive to now justifying why he shouldn't have been killed.

and doubled down on the Bush rationale for the GWOT.

So, if Pete Johnson in Ohio renounces his citizenship and is accused of plotting attacks against American targets you are perfectly OK with the President sending a death squad to kill him while he sleeps in his bed? Maybe take out his house with a hellfire missile fired from an orbiting drone?

logic FAIL.

"If Pete Johnson in Ohio renounces his citizenship" and moves to Afghanistan to actively engage in attacks against the U.S. then he's no different from Al Aulaqi.

Do you make a distinction between Al Aulaqi and Timothy McVeigh or David Koresh?

Is Ohio a foreign country?

they can kill ANYONE they deem an "enemy combatant" regardless of where they are. What say you now?

I know he has ranted and raved against the US. But where is the evidence of attacks?

http://www.newser.com/story/85389/obama-puts-american-cleric-on-cia-kill-list.html

I think everything you've said in this thread is either jingoistic "If America does it, its ok" crap, or just flat out stupid.

...just like every American. Pie?

"'If America does it, its ok' crap, or just flat out stupid."

No, but I do think trying to equate a terrorist with the average American is moronic!

sending drones to kill people we simply ACCUSE of crimes. We miss the person we were aiming for and kill two other people. This is your idea of justice??

What country is this we are living in anymore? I did NOT support this when I supported this president. In fact this was everything we opposed. Giving the powers of a king to a POTUS! NO way is that acceptable.

Hell, I don't need to hear more!

Fire all missiles!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Fuck Greenwald.

people, by sneaking into their countries, they believe have harmed their countries or not?

It was Bush who made Torture a common, routine part of our "war on terror." He set that standard.

Obama claimed to have ended torture, and refused to support torture, even though torture appears to have continued long after he claimed that. It continued at Gitmo and Bagram, and certainly it continued for people we turned over to authorities in Iraq and Afghanistan where we knew they were using torture routinely. We trained them, and captured and gave them their victims, so we certainly have some responsibility for what they did to those people. Obama also publicly stated that it was going to be his policy not to prosecute anyone who had been involved in torture or war crimes, because he only wanted to look forward.

Unfortunately, the basic, logical idea that they are allowed to do whatever you think you are allowed to do, (which is what Greenwald is talking about) means that;

Based on Bush's legacy they can feel that torture of Americans is acceptable because we did it to thousands of Iraqis and Afghanistanis first.

Based on Obama's legacy, they can feel that Assassination is perfectly acceptable now because we did it first. They can also feel that there are no longer any such thing as war crimes no matter what they do to US soldiers or even US civilians because Obama was the first to say that nobody gets investigated or held responsible for what happens in this war.

The whole idea that if we do it, they'll do it too, is a big part of the reason why the US made assassination and torture illegal to begin with. We recognized that the only way we could reasonably hold other people responsible for doing these things is if we did not do these things. We recognized that if we do these things then others would feel that they can too. Any legal justification we have, they have too. Any legal responsibility they have, we would have too.

American Exceptionalism, the idea that we're so special that the rules don't apply to us, isn't in the law.

I don't see where or how you think that Greenwald comes across as an "envious obssessive asshole." I think you are getting defensive over nothing.

I think we all get it by now that you think everyone should be cheering Obama night and day. Something like this that warns that assassination was not a wise policy move clearly isn't going to be something you're going to like. It doesn't fawn enough for your tastes, clearly. But that doesn't mean he's being an envious obsessive asshole.

"Obama claimed to have ended torture, and refused to support torture, even though torture appears to have continued long after he claimed that. It continued at Gitmo and Bagram, and certainly it continued for people we turned over to authorities in Iraq and Afghanistan where we knew they were using torture routinely."

He claimed? Please share the evidence that the President has sanctioned torture.

He is correct. If our nation is going to suddenly ignore all the valid reasons why we made assassination illegal and why we prohibited the US from engaging in policies of assassination, then any intelligent person would try to understand how others are going to perceive these change in policy and how they would respond to the changes.

They aren't going to be blinded by the American Exceptionalism that so many American's wallow in, in which people here see the US as an exception to every rule, able to get away with anything while demanding that everyone else do nothing without our permission. They are going to demand that anything we can do, they can do too. So if the US can suddenly assassinate anyone we want, they are going to take that as permission to assassinate anyone they want too.

The first time we assassinate anyone (as we just did) they are going to perceive this as permission to assassinate any American target on their wish list. What are the odds that Obama isn't on their wish list?

Saying this isn't having a melt-down. It's common sense. This kind of thinking was one of the reasons why assassination and torture were originally prohibited to begin with. The US outlawed both in order to prevent others from using either in retaliation. Now that we use both torture and assassination, and feel we have a legal right to use both at any time, we damned well better be smart enough to expect that any and all enemies can and will use both too.

(Americans included) with no judicial review.

Cheers to Glenn!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

is that ok too? what about a 'freedom fighter' (as OBL was in the 80s when we supported the taliban)?where do you draw the line? if you are ok with extra-judicial killings then you are ok with death squads. i expected better of obama.

in allowing a politician to have a specific individual killed without any legal review?

Put aside the name 'bin Laden' for a moment. Would you feel the same way if this were, say, some sort of whistleblower?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Goddam hippies.



:rofl:

Mon Dieu!

Just one of the diarests.

OBL was NOT a "head-of-state". He was a terrorist plain and simple. There is NO equivalency- moral or otherwise- between our head-of-state (or any other head-of-state) ordering the capturing/killing of a terrorist.

far from any battlefield and without any judicial review? The discussion Greenwald wants to have primarily concerns this point.

Glenn should scoop the rest of the world on this.

I thought distinguished us FROM the terrorists.

Oops, guess not.

this asshole. He knows which side his bread is buttered on. If "The War on Terror" actually came to a close, this clown would find himself as irrelevant as Donald Trump. I'm not sure why our president, who is a constitutional scholar would take direction from a part-time American? :shrug:

If you think the rule of law matters more than a security risk, then you'll probably care about and oppose an extra-judicial killing.

If you think a security risk trumps the rule of law, then you'll probably support an extra-judicial killing.

It appears that we had known for sometime where he was, he had been under surveillance, he had little money and limited contact with the outside world. He was unarmed when SEALS stormed the compound. It looks more like a weenie-waving revenge operation than a serious exercise in state security.

:shrug:

:shrug:

up with all the talking points etc.

Good one! :rofl:

that's about as far as the comments against him seem to go.

So why is it ok for the US to have extra judicial killings and not others?

And BTW, "we think they're bad people " is not a good reason. Everyone thinks their cause is just and moral.

That might leave a discussion on the facts, and that's a very inconvenient place to have a discussion where one side's "argument" is "America, fuck yeah!" Better to just dismiss concern with due process and the other laws of our nation as "obsessive" and the other drollery than engage with the facts.

And apparently bin Laden wasn't just a "bad" person, but was "very, very bad," so summarily offing him was all right.

He shouldn't be talking about the possibilty of our first black President being assassinated. By anybody. Hasn't he been paying attention to the Birthers?

entitled to under the laws of war consisted of a bullet in the brain (in the absence of an active surrender).

The same is not true about the President.

He offers that the President claims the right to kill people (even Americans) with no judicial review. Are you OK with that?

President claimed it (let alone Bush). Clinton authorized the killing of OBL.

If people do not want to be killed in a military operation, they should refrain from declaring war on the United States. Not sure why this is so hard to understand for some.

nm

nm

I do not know much about the person you speak of, but from the little research I have just done, it does not appear he is actively engaging in terrorist attacks on Cuba, or that he has declared war on Cuba or is a member of an organization that has done the same. So this is one big analogy fail.

He was the mastermind behind a plane bombing that killed 73 people, including the entire Cuban olympic fencing team. Do terrorist attacks have a statue of limitations? If you are interested, he's a video summarizing his career as CIA asset/terrorist mastermind.

https://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/peter-kornbluh-comments-on-the-aquittal-luis-posada-carriles-former-terrorist-and-cia-asset/

"it does not appear he is actively engaging in terrorist attacks on Cuba, or that he has declared war on Cuba or is a member of an organization that has done the same"

That is what I said. Your link does not disprove any of it. Do you have any ACTUAL research that claims he is actively engaging in terrorist plots in Cuba, or that he did declare war on Cuba and/or is a member of an organization that has declared war on Cuba?

Or are you just blowing smoke?

Fine, he hasn't tried to assassinate Castro in 10 years. I guess that means he's no longer a terrorist, or whatever point you're trying to prove. All I see is a "fine for me, not for thee" attitude that stinks. I don't think we will ever have anything in common, and I am glad to oppose you in everything you do.

Set aside OBL for a moment. The question asked by Greenwald is whether the President of the United States has the right to kill AMERICANS far from any battlefield with no judicial review. Please address that point.

Cheers!

Now that I've talked to him(her?), I'm sure of it.

citizens are being killed on a daily basis by the this country, you are likely to feel very differently. We are not the rulers of the world.

Are you saying George Bush was right and that POTUS has the power to kill anyone he decides to kill? Airc, this was completely opposed when Bush was president.

Why was Bin Laden killed, for which crime? What crime eg, is Alwaki being targeted for?

actively surrender. The laws of war don't change just because you are pissed at what they say, or because they offend your sensibilities.

sensibilities, mine or anyone elses. I am interested in the premise, established by Bush, that the POTUS can go anywhere in the world and kill anyone s/he wants to.

If that premise is accepted then the same rule applies to every other country.

We are harboring, eg, a man who committed a terrorist act against Cuba. Does Cuba now have the right to enter US territory and take him out?

That is not "whoever he likes." The person actually has to be a combatant. Obviously, anyone who declares himself a combatant is a combatant. Similarly, anyone who joins Al Queda is such a combatant, given that Al Queda has declared war on the US and not only has attacked the US in the past, but is currently plotting terrorist acts against the US as we speak. You, me, and 99.999% of the rest of the world are not combatants.

Our government does not aide/abet/enable terrorists and provide them a base of operations to attack other countries, so your question is moot. (This is of course notwithstanding the thoughts of the truthers, the thoughts of those who think Bush is a terrorist, etc etc etc).

anyone who doesn't very much in the minority. Polls from around the world show that a majority of people now view the US as the biggest threat to world peace. WE attacked other nations, without cause and did far more harm than any terrorist has the ability to do. Are you forgetting Iraq?? To say we do not enable terrorists to attack other countries after what we have done to that country? No, we do it ourselves and what then does that make us?

We don't get to say who is viewed by other countries as a terrorist. If some other country, like us eg, views someone we are 'harboring' here, as a threat to their national security, they have now the same right to send their commandos here to 'take him out' do they not?

You are quite confident that we have done nothing that could cause people in other countries to feel the same way we do about Bin Laden, about such war criminals as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al?? Is this some kind of new thinking on the 'left'? That Bush et al are NOT war criminals? Even Col. Wilkerson eg, would disagree with that. He has stated that they will soon not be able to travel anywhere except to Israel and Saudi Arabie due to the charges being made against them by victims of their crimes.

contrary notwithstanding). So that can be dismissed out of hand.

Again, the legality of the situation does not come down to what "we view" or "they view" -- it comes down to the truth. In reality, Bin Laden has declared war on the United States and is the commander of an organization that has declared war on the United States and is currently plotting attacks against the United States. It really doesn't get much clearer than that. That is true regardless of what anyone else might say to the contrary.

On the other hand, if someone were to attempt to kill a US government official, that would be illegal, because the US government official actually is not actively engaging in terrorist plots against their country. You could say otherwise, but that would just make you wrong. It comes down to the truth -- not what you think, or what they think.

"You are quite confident that we have done nothing that could cause people in other countries to feel the same way we do about Bin Laden"

Again, it does not come down to what anyone thinks -- it comes down to what is. But no, I am not worried that other countries will actually try it (given that our government does not aide and enable terrorists actively plotting against other countries), since that other country will probably not like the consequences of such an action.

you just posted, is what YOU think. You seem to have the idea that the Iraq war eg, was not illegal, was not a brutal act of terrorism against an entire population who had done nothing to this country, never even threatened it.

If you were an Iraqi citizen, your views would be the exact opposite of what they are. It is this inability of some Americans, not all by any means, to see that their views are just that, theirs and are not necessarily shared by the rest of the world.

Year after year, since the illegal invasion of Iraq, the US backed coups in Haiti, Honduras and Venezuela, in world polls asking 'who is the biggest threat to world peace', the US wins, every time.

If you think this doesn't matter to our future, well you're entitled to think whatever you like, but denying that we are viewed as a bigger threat than Iran, eg, is simply denying facts. So to you maybe, dropping bombs on innocent people is noble and our right to do, but others that is the very definition of terrorism.

I'm not going to pretend it is a legitimate point of view to claim that we never landed on the moon. I'm not going to pretend that it is a legitimate point of view that global warming actually doesn't exist. I'm not going to pretend that it is a legitimate point of view that evolution is a bogus theory. I am also not going to pretend that it is a legitimate point of view to claim that Bin Laden did not declare war on the United States, and that he is not of a member of an organization that has declared war on the United States.

You may be of the view that there any view that can be articulated by someone necessarily should be deferred to in some way, irrespective of its truth or falsity. But sometimes, there is actually truth, whether or not some people close their eyes and ears to it. YMMV.

a major crime against the Iraqi people and that they now have the right to get justice for that crime. In fact, the US killed far more Iraqis when they declared war on that country, than Bin Laden could have killed if he lived several lifetimes. And you are going to pretend that they do not have the right to get that justice the same way the US claims it has a right to do.

Maybe you are one of those people who believe that the US has special rights in this world, but the problem with that is, it puts this country in grave danger because so many other people do not agree that the US is in any way more special than any other country, or that it has more rights.

So, if the US claims that it can go into another country to kill someone who harmed this country, then so can every other country in the world. That is just a fact.

As you said, sometimes there is actual truth.

It was a military operation against someone who declared war against the US. We are not harboring/assisting/enabling terrorists at war with other countries, so your false equivalency is inapplicable.

wrongfully declared war on Iraq, just as Bin Laden declared war on the US, wrongfully. So, if we were right to go after him wherever we found him, then the Iraqis have that very same right to go after those who declared war on their nation do they not?

You appear to be avoiding that question. Are Bush and his cabal of PNACers war criminals or not? Certainly, as Col. Wilkerson has said, he and his torturing war criminals are being pursued in courts around the world by the victims of their crimes and will not be able to travel without risking arrest, Wilkerson points out (see the cancellation of Bush's trip to Switzerland eg) as more and more victims from the various countries they were kidnapped from, take them to court.

Considering that Bin Laden wrongfully declaring war on the US and killing nearly 3,000 people, is different from Bush and his cabal wrongfully declaring war on Iraq only in the number of people both cabals killed, then the Iraqi government, someday when the puppet government is no longer in power, can claim the same right to come here or wherever they may find them, and take out those who declared war on them.

You are apparently of the opinion that killing Americans wrongfully is different than killing Muslims wrongfully. I imagine there are many people who do not share your opinion, and that is why this is a dangerous precedent to set for this country.

Less whiny.

You madcap! Where you going with that shotgun?

whatever Greenwald says on the issue. This latest false equivalency of Greenwald's shows that this barometer is still quite accurate.

Sid

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

This isn't a Daily Kos article. It's a diary posted there. It's like saying "Democratic Underground: Blah, blah, blah" when it's a post by Hissyspit.

:lol:

"How can someone who objected to Bush's attempt to eavesdrop on or detain citizens without judicial oversight cheer for Obama's attempt to kill them without judicial oversight? Can someone please reconcile those positions?"

Can someone PLEASE reconcile those seemingly contradictory positions indeed?

k&r

You could fill a fucking cornfield with all the straw men, a river with all the red herrings, and make a 12,000 ft. toboggan run with all the friggin' slippery slopes.

It's very simple. There is no "claim that the US can do whatever the hell it wants". If peoples heads are so firmly ensconced in their asses that they can't see the particular situation pertaining to this ONE PARTICULAR GUY, too fucking bad.

The rest of us will move on, and civilization and the rule of law will survive.

Then you deny that is your argument. Well which is it?

Maybe you didn't read what I wrote, or confused me with someone else.

What law?

The US writes them to tailor-fit and situation it wants.

...

In answer to yours? Both.

If he committed a crime, there is a remedy. It is called a trial.

If he declared war, you must be asserting that he is a head of state?

But that can't be because I have heard so many say that he is not and there is no state that he is the head of anyway.

So where is OBL's authority to declare war? Answer: He has none.

Therefore, it was a crime.

It was a war, declared by a stateless enemy, that respected none of the 'bounds' of 'legitimate' war, even.

Kerry was right in 2004 when he said, and I'm paraphrasing, that terrorism should be dealt with mostly as a law enforcement issue, only in extreme, judicious specific cases militarily. Clearly, invading, say, Iraq was not a reasonable response to a terrorist attack that had nothing to do with Iraq. The logic for invading Afghanistan was more sound, only in that not just OBL but a significant amount of Al Qaeda apparatus was in Afghanistan at the time. Note this does not de facto justify a 10 year occupation, however.

I think in the context of what happened on 9-11 and subsequently, this was about the ONLY action that most of the human race would agree the US has been completely justified in taking.


But since you think, again, that there needs to be a 'defense'... how about MY answer? What laws were violated, specifically?

If it was a crime, it was a violation of the right to due process.

If he was an enemy that we are at war with, it was a violation of the Geneva Convention.

it depends on the jurisdiction and the circumstances of the charging.

Osama Bin Laden is not a citizen of the united states nor does he enjoy any civil rights or due process as a fugitive in Pakistan.

Furthermore, like I said, it was a crime AND an act of war. It had elements of both.

Did we violate the geneva convention when we killed Yamomoto? Furthermore, enemies die in wars. I've seen no conclusive proof that Osama was attempting to surrender when he was killed.

As for the Yamamoto issue, I do not wish to get involved since I do not know enough of that case.

there was enough of a "war" with Al Qaeda to certainly justify engaging at the very least the top guy in a war context.

On Yamamoto's death:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Vengeance

commit crimes. As has been said already, above, what he did was a crime. Terrorism has always been handled as a crime. Clinton, eg, did not send out commandos to kill the blind Sheik Rahman, he had him arrested and tried and he was convicted along with the others who bombed the WTC in 1993.

Sheik Rahman declared war on this country, but a terrorist declaring war is like a mouse threatening an elephant. The don't have the ability to fight a war. Rahman also was far more influential than OBL, in fact he was a mentor to people like OBL, still the Clinton administration did not fear using our judicial system, despiter fears of reprisals. We were still 'America' then, we had faith in our judicial system. It took seven years of trials, but it got done.

Just the arrest of the Sheik could have resulted in violence. But many arrests have that potential. Arresting members of the Mafia often result in threats of death etc. but we don't let that stop our judicial system from working.

People who claim the Seals could not have arrested him are basically saying they could not do what ordinary cops do every day. THEY often don't know what they will face when they go to arrest violent criminals. Should they kill everyone rather than risk their lives?

Trillions of dollars have been spent and thousands of lives lost because, we are told, of this one man. The victims of the Cole, the Embassy Bombings have not had the opportunity to see him face to face. He was not indicted for 9/11 because the FBI says, they did not have enough evidence to indict him. A trial for the other crimes might have helped provide some of that evidence.

Moussaoui was tried in NYC without incident. If he could be tried, so could the others, in our courts where these cases belong. 'He hated our freedoms' we were told. Well, he didn't need to worry about them anymore, we gave them away. He may be dead, but he won.

Like I said, it had elements both of crime AND war.

It's nice to know you've acknowledged, at least implicitly, that Osama was responsible for 9-11, though.

be nearly certain of someone's guilt, but if you don't have 'hard evidence' as the FBI admitted not having, then you either keep investigating until you find it, or you end up not finding it. If you cannot find it, you do not indict someone for obvious reasons. This is how our system works. I don't know why people do not have faith in it. It is not perfect but it is among the best in the world. What I or the FBI THINK about OBL's guilt, becomes irrelevant once it enters the judicial system.

I am not in the habit when the issue is a legal one, of insisting that my opinion trumps the evidence. That doesn't mean I don't have an opinion and I don't know why you are confusing the two. Unless of course you have no faith in our system of justice and would prefer a more vigilante type system, such as OBL apparently believed in.

Regarding why a seriously disturbed individual such as OBL and his followers might declare war on us? A two year old can declare war on whoever s/he feels like, but a two-year-old doesn't have the status that would make anyone take that declaration seriously. Neither do terrorists. And they have never been taken seriously regarding declaring WAR before, until Bush. Terror is a crime no matter what the terrorists say.

A better question is: why are we allowing terrorists to determine our actions?

I'm sorry that you can't grasp why that event, in particular, elevates Osama to something above not only the level of a two year old having a tantrum, but also a run-of-the-mill criminal.

that an attack on US soil was imminent and went on vacation.

I also remember that the CIC before him received similar warnings but did not ignore them so they were prevented.

People plan crimes, big crimes, all the time. Crimes, no matter how many people they kill committed by organizations that are stateless are crimes, not declarations of war. Every country in the world has been and will continue to be threatened by terrorist attacks. It's always been that way, but we are the only one who went to war, and with the wrong country too, on the pretext that we were at war with Al Queda. Hard to believe since Al Queda never was in Iraq, being that they hated Saddam Hussein as much as they hated us. But the gullibility and the ignorance of the ME in America, made it possible for the Bush gang to convince people that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Speaking of crimes!

I seem to remember a common thread being the question, "why aren't we going after the guy who actually DID attack us"

Well, now we did. And he's dead. Buh-bye.

we actually didn't violate any of them. The Geneva Conventions do not prevent in any way the killing of an unarmed combatant (let alone a commander), unless that combatant unambiguously surrendered. If you dispute that in any way, I would love to see your Convention number and section number that supports your view. Too many people are equating what they wish the law were to what the law actually is.

I asked if it was:

a) a Crime

or

B) a War

If it is a crime, the proper response is a legal trial.

If it is a war, which I do not think it is, it would be a violation of Geneva Convention.

However, it is clearly NOT a war so the Geneva Convention does not apply.

single Geneva Convention.

If you believe otherwise, I would love to see the section and convention number of the convention you claim it would be a violation of. (Again, assuming it is a war for the sake of argument.)

Thank you.

his claims that the POTUS did not have to ask anyone if he wanted to order the killing someone anywhere in the world, did you tell him to shut up then??

You know, he isn't saying anything he and just about everyone on the left were saying when Bush was president. So what's the problem NOW?

Or wait!! Was Bush right after all? Were we wrong to criticize him?

and going anti-Democratic mainstream. It seems out of character but I'm glad he's being intellectually honest.

Make the left look every bit as looney as the right says we are. Fucking idiots.

Just like every whack-a-doo opinion spouted here isn't "Democratic Underground", it's someone ON DU.

at any time.

They made that assertion years ago.

So what the fuck would or could this possible "change?

be bound by 'international law', no matter what.

So really, I think the idea that eliminating their leader is some sort of 'dangerous precedent' is absurd.

But as Nietsche said....well I suppose you know what he said... about becoming a monster ourselves.

As far as becoming a monster; I think we've done far more morally dubious, unjustified things than what we did to Osama. This one was pretty clear cut.

case.

according to a recent poll.

41% also believe it should be expected and is equally appropriate that our soldiers be tortured when captured by the enemy.

I don't even know what's controversial about what Greenwald said. If we can kill anyone anywhere else, why can't anyone else kill any of us? That's what "American exceptionalism" means?

When did the concept of "American exceptionalism" go from meaning we are so awesome that we set the standard for justice and democracy to we are so awesome that the rules don't apply to us?

and some semi-plausible way they might benefit from doing it.

But that is also the argument against any other country sponsoring terrorist acts against us, so it will never be mentioned.