rvg, some couple of years later?

[rvg]

Why not send in a team to extract him? Putting him on trial and proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that he did in fact incite those murders, and then putting a needle in his arm as he was sent to hell? Now that, my friend, would be justice.

If it were feasible, don't you think it would have been done?

Acting on a presumption of guilt (however probable) and sending in some drones to blow him up is just cowardly.

Cowardly? Is Obama a follower of the Bushido? I'm not sure what you mean by "cowardly", was Obama supposed to personally fly to Yemen and beat Al Awlaki to death?

[rvg]

Perfectly feasible. He was in Yemen, a nation that was effectively under the control of Al Qaeda at the time. Sending in a team would have had much less political repurcussions than sending in the team to kill OBL did.

And yet it wasn't done. Perhaps the idea had the drawbacks that you and I aren't privy to know? With Osama the idea of a hellfire missle was also an option. It was rejected because the missile didn't guarantee that Osama would be dead. Awlaki was killed while traveling, got a 100% positive ID via drone and then kaboom. Osama never left the building, that's why the seals were sent in.

And there surely would have been no shortage of voltunteers; hell I was in the Army at the time, I totally would have gone for it.

Why needlessly risk your life?

Unfortunately, the president knew he could get away with taking the easy way out.

A smart way out.

Cowardly, yes. Afraid to do the hard thing even though it is the right thing. If you let your leaders make cowardly decisions, it reflects on the nation. We have a lot of cowards in America, and that's a bummer.

The notion of bravado for the sake of sake of bravado smells of a death wish. Accomplishing one's goal with the smallest possible risk is the smart way to go.

[rvg]

Until it leads to compromising your principles in such a way that endangers the people it was meant to protect. Hence the need for concepts of honor and justice to begin with.

Endangers whom and how? Obama went after a specific threat for a specific reason. Whom did he endanger as a result?

[rvg]

There is now a legal precedent for extra-judicial execution of 'terrorists' who have been been accused (but not convicted or tried) of inciting murder. Not actual murder, but inciting murder. If you think anything good will come of that in the long run, then you probably also thought the Patriot Act was a good idea.

It doesn't mean that just anyone can start popping people. The decision still has to come from the president. If the commander-in-chief can't do what needs to be done, then why have that post at all?

[rvg]

What needs to be done? Or what the administration wants to do, but doesn't want to ask permission for? There is a huge difference between 'making the hard calls that nobody else can' and 'doing it first and asking for permission later.' Neither one is particularly applicable in a democratic society anyway.

Whose permission? He's the commander-in-chief, he needs no permissions.

[rvg]

What? That's not true at all. Are you sure you're not some kind of American Monarchist?

There's a reason we elect him: we delegate our ability to make tough judgement calls to him.

[rvg]

No. You elect him to effect policies that you think will benefit you and the nation, according to your own personal metric of good or bad politics.

That's exactly what he did.

[Kadagar_AV]

RVG, do you watch Fox News, by any chance?

[rvg]

RVG, do you watch Fox News, by any chance?

Sometimes. BBC is my main news source.

[Kadagar_AV]

Sometimes. BBC is my main news source.

Do You understand what they say, when You watch BBC?

[rvg]

Do You understand what they say, when You watch BBC?

Only when they're speaking English.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There's a reason we elect him: we delegate our ability to make tough judgement calls to him.

Within the bounds of your Laws and Constitution.

You guys got more upset about him trying to force you to have health insurance than his extra-judicial murder of a foreign national in an allied nation.

[rvg]

You guys got more upset about him trying to force you to have health insurance than his extra-judicial murder of a foreign national in an allied nation.

Do you seriously expect for someone here to be upset over Osama's death? Really?

[Tellos Athenaios]

No, but the ramifications are unpleasant especially when you have a system of law which enshrines precedent so strongly. It's actually not OBL's death you should be worried about, in the sense that this sort of thing probably is par for the course only usually you are not told about it. Rather you should worry about the precedent of bombing US citizens in Yemen, the PATRIOT act and so on.

[rvg]

Rather you should worry about the precedent of bombing US citizens in Yemen, the PATRIOT act and so on.

If those aforementioned citizens openly declare war on America and openly join the enemy, to hell with them. This isn't even a morally grey area imho: send a hellfire in their direction and move on to the next target.

[rvg]

Oh yeah, its all flag-waving jingoist goodness until the government decides to flex its muscles here at home. The NDAA, the Patriot Act, the precedent of extra-judicial murder... its all more than enough to ensure that the sheep will get slaughtered sooner or later. The lapse of democratic judgement has already occured, and all we can do now is wait for the other shoe to drop.

this imho is nothing but crying wolf at this point.

[Strike For The South]

I love the comment the average Joe won't get tortured.

No country in the history of countries has ever said it was torturing people who were not toattly public enemy #1 and a grave threat.

[rvg]

Well you've refused to see any of the more down-to-earth arguments against the expansion of executive power, so all I can do now is tell you how its gonna be. Hopefully our kids don't hate us too much for it.

Thse arguments simply aren't very convincing. So far we have Osama -- dead, Awlaki -- dead. Those are good things in my book.

[rvg]

They are good, but in order to kill them we broke our own laws and re-wrote the ones we didn't break. We live in a precedent-based society, and things like this always come back to bite you in the ass.

I would argue about the always part. Either way, if those laws become a liability, we'll repeal them. If we decide that the president's job description allows allows him to do too much, we'll change it. That's the beauty of democracy.

[rvg]

RVG, if the Patriot Act is ever repealed, I'll buy you a fifth of whatever booze you want and hand-deliver it to your door.

How can you be a fan of the right and yet be so ignorant of big-government tactics? Watching all the Republicans turn into blunt, straight-up proponents of big-government has been flabberghasting over these last 10 years.

I'm a conservative, yes, but that doesn't make me a republican. The fact that I'll be voting for Obama should be a clear indication that I'm in no way partisan in my views.

[Papewaio]

I would argue about the always part. Either way, if those laws become a liability, we'll repeal them. If we decide that the president's job description allows allows him to do too much, we'll change it. That's the beauty of democracy.

Precedence & Reciprocity. Other belligerents can act in kind and that is not something you can change by changing the rules again. This is not the Americas Cup where you can change the rules and the competitors must abide.

It's also not just about conflicts you are a belligerent in. Your actions have set a new low benchmark for the US which effects leverage in a whole range of diplomatic encounters. It so means other nation states can chose to deal with their dissidents and enemies in the same manner.

US diplomatic leverage has been watered down. How can the US stop Russia, China or any other nation from executing without trials? All they have to say is that the people killed where believed to be terrorists any bystanders or innocents are merely collateral damage.

If an American now incites the murder a foreign national that foreign nation can legitimately order the assassination without trial of that American. That is reciprocity in action.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

They are good, but in order to kill them we broke our own laws and re-wrote the ones we didn't break. We live in a precedent-based society, and things like this always come back to bite you in the ass.

Well, they aren't really good because they were murdered.

Question: Which is better, dead OBL or OBL voluntarily wrapping himself in the US flag and painting a peace symbol on his turban?

I would argue about the always part. Either way, if those laws become a liability, we'll repeal them. If we decide that the president's job description allows allows him to do too much, we'll change it. That's the beauty of democracy.

Executive power naturally expands, especially in a democracy where people keep demanding the government "do" something.

Ergo Patrio Act = Bad.

[Papewaio]

Okay so let's see...
Has the fact that they were actually tortured been proven in court?

Reciprocity it's like a wheel you know. Just remember that your standards state people are guilty until proven innocent. If we don't need a court of law to prove that a terrorist is or is not in fact Joe Average, we don't need a court of law to rubber stamp any other facts or rumours.

Just remember these aren't my standards these are yours applied across the board.

[rvg]

Ergo Patrio Act = Bad.

That's your opinion. Decision on whether on not we should keep it is ours. If people are sufficiently pissed off by a law, any law, they will change it. If it stays, then it's not sufficiently bad.

Question: Which is better, dead OBL or OBL voluntarily wrapping himself in the US flag and painting a peace symbol on his turban?

Dead, of course. Dead, dead, dead.

[Greyblades]

Well, they aren't really good because they were murdered.

Question: Which is better, dead OBL or OBL voluntarily wrapping himself in the US flag and painting a peace symbol on his turban?

Is this pre 9/11 OBL or post 9/11?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's your opinion. Decision on whether on not we should keep it is ours. If people are sufficiently pissed off by a law, any law, they will change it. If it stays, then it's not sufficiently bad.

It won't be repealed before the Revolution.

Dead, of course. Dead, dead, dead.

Why?

Is this pre 9/11 OBL or post 9/11?

Post.

[Beskar]

Question: Which is better, dead OBL or OBL voluntarily wrapping himself in the US flag and painting a peace symbol on his turban?

The latter, assuming this is him surrendering peacefully or self-exile away from it all and preaching that he was wrong and peace is the answer.

[rvg]

It won't be repealed before the Revolution.

Sure it will. If we could repeal The Prohibition, we can repeal anything.

Why?

He killed 3000 innocent people.

[Kadagar_AV]

He killed 3000 innocent people.

So... assassinating one of your former heroes is better than having him turn back into your fold, urging whoever is against you to lay down their cause and weapons?


Quite the fan of punishment, aren't you?

[Greyblades]

Post.

Dead.