Purple wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:...he is two things:

1. A hypocrite. He campaigned against torture, Gitmo, etc. Now, without a trial, he kills whomever he likes, including American citizens.

2. Trapped by his own hypocrisy. If he was not so opposed to Guantanamo, he might authorize the capture of some AQ operatives, which might be more useful than mowing them down.

Well he in fact ended torture (at least as performed by employees of the US Gov't), and he did try (rather stupidly IMHO) to give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed a civilian trial in NYC. As a hypocrite he's sort of a half-hearted one, which for a politician is better than average.

As regards your #2, that's a fairly thin thread of speculation. The alternative explanations offered above are (for me) a little easier to believe. I'm not saying you're for sure wrong, only that it's highly speculative. I guess it's easier to believe if you really despise Obama generally, as you seem to.

So, we can't capture any of them?

I think that is speculation.

When Democrats want answers and say national security is being compromised, maybe the President Obama Fan Club here at Redscape ought to take notice:

Feinstein, joined by Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.), promised new legislation to crack down on leaks of classified information, The issue has gained traction since the publication of two front-page New York Times stories last week providing new details about President Barack Obama's secret terrorist "kill list" and the U.S. government's cyberattacks on Iran's nuclear facilities.

The four lawmakers said they recently met with Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and planned to sit down with FBI Director Robert Mueller. Feinstein said the four members "will be working together to try to produce some changes in the Senate [Defense] Authorization Bill, which has not been completed."

"The House has completed their bill but we have not," Feinstein said. "And, so, we will work with the House membership on language that can be acceptable to both sides to codify a certain process which we hope will be more efficient in retarding leaking ... this, obviously because of the timing, will have to be done in the next month or so."

When asked later about the suggestion from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) that the leaks had been politically motivated, Feinstein demurred. "One thing we said, wherever the chips fall, they fall," Feinstein said. "But we want a fair investigation. We want to be able to see that we have the processes in place to deal with it. I do not believe that we do at the present time."

Chambliss, the vice-chairman of the committee, said that "wherever the responsibility falls out, that's where it's going to be. If it's in the administration, fine, and if it's not in the administration, fine."

. . .

The Obama administration, which has relentlessly pursued previous leaks, has appeared less bothered by the two Times stories, prompting claims the administration had approved the leaks for the president's benefit in an election year.

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/0 ... -of-leaks/

In an interview with Wolf Blitzer on the Situation Room, Feinstein said, "I think what we're seeing, Wolf, is an avalanche of leaks and it is very, very disturbing. It's dismayed our allies. It puts American lives in jeopardy. It puts our nation's security in jeopardy."

Ranking members of both the Senate and House Intelligence Committees have joined Feinstein, D-California, in her calls for adding provisions that would require that lawmakers be notified in a more timely fashion when authorized disclosures are made, and for individuals to report the rationale behind those decisions. Other provisions are expected to call for more robust investigations of unauthorized disclosures of information and are expected to ask for additional authorities that would make it easier to drill down on the source of leaks and then prosecute those found to be responsible.

Obviously, those who know something think there is something to be concerned about. Maybe some of the nattering chatterers here might do some reading?

Let me know when all this turns into a story...

freeman2 wrote:Let me know when all this turns into a story...

??? There's certainly a story. Leaks that have every appearance of being electorally useful* but damaging to the nation represent a particularly poignant vice. Unfortunately, as a story, it can't go much farther unless the leaker(s) are outed one way or another. It hurts Obama but the hurt is limited if the story goes no farther.

*Useful? They turned out to be the opposite. That's one reason why I suspect this was the work of some underling in national security rather than the work of a more politically astute Obama or Axelrod.

Doctor Fate wrote:So, we can't capture any of them?

Perhaps we've tried and failed. Or perhaps a decision has been made not to try... for good and valid reasons. Consider the logistical and personnel requirements of having one or more rapid-reaction capture squads of special forces troops prepared to copter into Pakistani airspace (without giving the Pak air force any advance warning) and consider the risks involved to some of our most highly-trained and valuable specialists. Compare that to the low-cost low-risk alternative of a drone strike. And consider what that hypothetical capture squad could be doing instead of sitting around waiting. We have zero surplus of special forces.

Now I'm making some assumptions here about what it takes to capture a bad guy. I'm assuming he's someplace where we don't have all sorts of ground troops hanging around. I'm assuming he's been ID'ed suddenly one way or another. I'm assuming these guys don't have fixed residences. (Bin Laden was a special case. Capturing him might have been decidedly awkward for us regardless of whether the US Prez was Obama or Doctor Fate.)

I'm not a fan of the President but neither do I think he's a complete cad and idiot. In this discussion I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt if only to play devil's advocate to your over-the-top suspicions and ill-will. And all I'm doing is presenting alternatives for consideration. I don't throw your hypothesis out the window out of hand. Taking prisoners might indeed seem to this administration to be a potential source of political difficulties, especially vis-a-vis Obama's hardcore base. But if that supposition holds any water I see it as just one more reason, among all the others mentioned, to decide in favor of drones. I don't think Obama is necessarily "above" including the prisoner dilemma (ha ha) among his reasons. On the other hand, I'd be surprised if it was the only reason. One reason I'd be surprised: if taking prisoners were sufficiently easy I'd have expected someone in the armed forces or DOD or CIA or someplace else to have raised a stink about this long ago.

Steve, I've already said leaks should be investigated. I just don't immediately assume that Obama done them. Purple has your number, though.

(what was that thing about Arabic in Britain, though? My point is that anglicised versions of Arabic words are not definitive. There are different variations as the letters and sounds do not have exact equivalents)

danivon wrote:Steve, I've already said leaks should be investigated. I just don't immediately assume that Obama done them. Purple has your number, though.

I never said "Obama leaked this." However, who else benefits? Who else has motivation? Who else would be shielded from any serious investigation? The Administration has said there will not be a Special Prosecutor. And, it's not like they have not previously gone after such leaks with great zeal:

The image-making may also be at odds with the administration’s own tough stance on shutting down the flow of information by cracking down on leakers. Since Obama took office, a total of six leak-related criminal cases have been filed, including the pending court martial of alleged Wikileaks leaker Pfc. Bradley Manning. That’s more than all previous cases in modern U.S. history. In fact, the administration has been so forceful in prosecuting leaks that whistleblower and press advocates have complained the legal actions are discouraging disclosures about wrongdoing.

And, this is not some political, partisan issue:

“This has to stop,” Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said bluntly about the leaks.

“I’ve been on this committee close to 10 years. This is one of the most serious breaches in the last couple articles that have come out that I have seen,” said the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland. “It puts us at risk. It puts lives at risk.”

. . .

Soon after the raid, Defense Secretary Robert Gates publicly complained that the White House had breached an agreement not to disclose details about the mission.

”A week ago Sunday, in the Situation Room, we all agreed that we would not release any operational details from the effort to take out bin Laden,” Gates said. “That all fell apart on Monday — the next day.”

It’s hard to say whether specific leaks were aimed at boosting Obama, since the agencies and individuals involved may have independent motives for highlighting their successes, but Congress does seem intent on shutting the leaks down.

As for Purple, I would agree that President Obama is not an idiot or a cad. So what? He's a Chicago pol. To believe that anything is out of bounds is to grant him an innocence he has failed to demonstrate.

Doctor Fate wrote:

Purple wrote:Dr. Fate: as Sassenach said, "if you have a point then make it." Clearly you see the failure to capture (and instead kill) as some sort of error, failure, vice, malfeasance, or other form of sin. Are you suggesting that Obama is stupid? cowardly? or what?

No, I'm saying he is two things:

1. A hypocrite. He campaigned against torture, Gitmo, etc. Now, without a trial, he kills whomever he likes, including American citizens.

2. Trapped by his own hypocrisy. If he was not so opposed to Guantanamo, he might authorize the capture of some AQ operatives, which might be more useful than mowing them down.

It's worth noting that I completely agree with our good Doctor. Is that a pig flying I see?

geojanes wrote:It's worth noting that I completely agree with our good Doctor. Is that a pig flying I see?

Nah. It's like with some Democrats and some Republicans--I think with the right leadership they could agree on many common sense things. If you and I were Speaker and Majority Leader, and we had a less partisan President, I think we'd get a lot done.

Infinite detention and extra-legal assassinations (of American citizens no less, though that hardly makes much difference morally) is worse than Watergate, probably even worse than the torture Mr. Bush authorized. If all of this proves true, not only should he not be reelected, I expect that a court somewhere would be interested in having an extensive conversation with him.

geojanes wrote:Infinite detention and extra-legal assassinations (of American citizens no less, though that hardly makes much difference morally) is worse than Watergate, probably even worse than the torture Mr. Bush authorized. If this all of this proves true, not only should he not be reelected, I expect that a court somewhere would be interested in having an extensive conversation with him.

Now, I will blame Bush for Obama: I think the biggest failure was not declaring this an official war in the first place. It would have clarified the boundaries. Instead, what we have seen is a rather unprecedented growth in "executive power." I would say it began under Clinton (rendition), was expanded by Bush and even more so by Obama.

Doctor Fate wrote:

geojanes wrote:I think the biggest failure was not declaring this an official war in the first place. It would have clarified the boundaries.

I sympathize with your desire (presumably) for clarity and the constitutional imprimatur of an official declaration, but when exactly did the "boundaries" become clear enough to make the drafting of that war declaration possible? How would you define those boundaries even today? Al Qaeda doesn't publish membership lists or wear uniforms, and they respect no borders. How do you declare war on an ideology?

Purple wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

geojanes wrote:I think the biggest failure was not declaring this an official war in the first place. It would have clarified the boundaries.

I sympathize with your desire (presumably) for clarity and the constitutional imprimatur of an official declaration, but when exactly did the "boundaries" become clear enough to make the drafting of that war declaration possible? How would you define those boundaries even today? Al Qaeda doesn't publish membership lists or wear uniforms, and they respect no borders. How do you declare war on an ideology?

By declaring war on those who belong to groups associated with that ideology.

Furthermore, even when war could clearly have been declared, e.g. against Afghanistan, it was not.

fate

By declaring war on those who belong to groups associated with that ideology.

How would that have helped with the problems of prisoners collected in Afghanistan who later became
inmates at Guantamo?
Many were simply turned in to US forces by Afghan's for the bounty being offered. They were supposed to be "members of Al Queda" or Taliban". But it turned out a lot were just in the wrong place and the wrong time.

I agree that the problems with arresting and detaining prisoners of "The War on Terror" began in Afghanistan. There was no clear protocol developed that served to identify prisoners, or develop a chain of evidence that they could have been legitimately tried as criminals on..So a lot of people who were detained should not have been, and some who could legitimately be considered terrorists probably couldn't be tried under reasonable rule of evidence and jurisprudence because their cases had been compromised by the circumstance of their arrests and imprisonment. Which has lead to the handful in Guantanamo who are stuck in some kind of limbo because they may indeed be too dangerous to release, and who haven't had any recourse to what could be defined as quick and fair judicial process. Its apparent that the practical aspects of releasing a number of them out weigh the idealistic view of providing them access to what most would construe to be a more transparent recourse to trial.

At the same time, its not really practical to declare war on an ideology. Its been done. Often internally in nations. But declaring war on ideas involves charging people with what? (Membership in the Communist Party, for instance?)
In Al-Qaeda's case, proving someone is associated with people who have known to have committed a crimes ? And how would you exercise that in Yemen or Pakistan today? Especially Pakistan? Does the US have free movement within the country and the right of arrest?
Drones seem like a practical way of striking at associates of Al Qaeda without the problem inherenet in having ground forces in an area. They don't risk American lives. They serve to demonstrate the inherent weakness in the terrorist group, and they demonstrate to the host countries that cannot or will not police their national territories that they cannot harbour terrorist organizations with impunity.
This is particularly important in Pakistan which has played the West for fools by both accepting aid, and then actually nurturing terrorist cells...
The downside is that innocents can die as a result of Drone strikes. And this can harden the young Pakistanis... So there has to be a carrot with the stick...I'm not sure this element exists...

Obama has served to be very practical in these matters. He isn't the saint the far left thought he was. He isn't making irresponsible commitments to invade countries that would later need long term occupation .... He's using the tools at his disposal and dealing... If you weren't blind with hate to the guy, Dr. F, you'd appreciate how he's projected US power at a bargain basement price... (remembering that he inherited Iraq and Afghanistan's occupations.)

rickyp wrote:fate

By declaring war on those who belong to groups associated with that ideology.

How would that have helped with the problems of prisoners collected in Afghanistan who later became
inmates at Guantamo?

It would solve it. They would be prisoners of war.

Many were simply turned in to US forces by Afghan's for the bounty being offered. They were supposed to be "members of Al Queda" or Taliban". But it turned out a lot were just in the wrong place and the wrong time.

And, are those folks still in Gitmo? If not, what's the problem?

It's unfortunate they were turned in, but this is not a standard war. Should we just take everyone's word for it that they're not terrorists?

Which has lead to the handful in Guantanamo who are stuck in some kind of limbo because they may indeed be too dangerous to release, and who haven't had any recourse to what could be defined as quick and fair judicial process. Its apparent that the practical aspects of releasing a number of them out weigh the idealistic view of providing them access to what most would construe to be a more transparent recourse to trial.

And, yet, your hero has been President for 3+ years and has stood on what principle in this situation?

At the same time, its not really practical to declare war on an ideology. Its been done. Often internally in nations. But declaring war on ideas involves charging people with what? (Membership in the Communist Party, for instance?)

Lame analogy. Joe McCarthy was not the President. Communists did not take down the WTC.

If you can't come up with something better, don't try.

In Al-Qaeda's case, proving someone is associated with people who have known to have committed a crimes ? And how would you exercise that in Yemen or Pakistan today? Especially Pakistan? Does the US have free movement within the country and the right of arrest?

You are sorely confused. I am not advocating a declaration of war so we can arrest people.

Meanwhile, without a DoW, we have a President deciding who should die--and how "collateral damage" should be classified as "probable combatants" so their deaths are justified. President Obama says terrorism is a crime, yet he's the one executing people for it without any trial or the other niceties you prefer.

He says we're not at war, but acts as though we are.

Hmm, I think that's a form of hypocrisy.

Drones seem like a practical way of striking at associates of Al Qaeda without the problem inherenet in having ground forces in an area. They don't risk American lives.

That's part of it. What's the rest?

Stumped? Let me tell you.

Drones have no political risk. The Left will mumble, but he's their man, so how far can they push it? The Right isn't going to march in favor of terrorists. So, it's perfect. Further, we saw the tumult when Holder announced he was bringing KSM to NYC. Obama wants no part of that.

It's all political.

Obama has served to be very practical in these matters. He isn't the saint the far left thought he was. He isn't making irresponsible commitments to invade countries that would later need long term occupation .... He's using the tools at his disposal and dealing... If you weren't blind with hate to the guy, Dr. F, you'd appreciate how he's projected US power at a bargain basement price... (remembering that he inherited Iraq and Afghanistan's occupations.)

First, i don't hate President Obama. However, he's about as useful as a stopped clock--he's right twice a day (at best).

Second, he's projecting weakness in Russia, in Iran, in China, and in Afghanistan (by announcing a withdrawal date). The only strong move he's made recently is reaching out to India. That is the lever with Pakistan.

Doctor Fate wrote:

Purple wrote:How would you define those boundaries even today? Al Qaeda doesn't publish membership lists or wear uniforms, and they respect no borders. How do you declare war on an ideology?

By declaring war on those who belong to groups associated with that ideology.

Not at all easy to do. For instance, the State Department's list of terrorist organizations is continually evolving. Would you declare war on "whoever the Sec'y of State determines, from time to time, to be a group associated with the ideology of al Qaeda"? For that matter, al Qaeda itself evolves (and other groups dissolve and reform under new names). Can you really define their ideology? Even more troublesome: can you define their ideology without including in your declaration a whole raft of quasi-Islamist institutions? Would you declare war on the Muslim Brotherhood and the scores of institutions all over associated with it? How about on the entire religious structure of Saudi Arabia - all those Wahabbi - the doctrinal foundation of al Qaeda's fundamentalism?

You think this DoW would solve the POW problem. It would not. Say we take a prisoner in Afghanistan under the suspicion or assumption that he's a "member" of the Taliban. He wears no uniform and carries no membership card. We presumably have some evidence of some sort to fuel our belief, but how much evidence is enough? You are once again in a quasi-judicial situation, like it or not. In a "regular" war like WWII such uncertain situations do arise, I imagine, but not frequently. In the war on terror it would be more the rule than the exception.

The concept of a DoW simply wasn't made to deal with certain types of wars. The USA has formally declared war only five times in its history: 1812, Mexico 1846, Spain 1898, WWI and WWII. The USA never declared war on the South in the US Civil War because the Union never recognized the Confederacy's sovereignty as a nation. DoW's are by definition made by one nation against another one (not against amorphous "groups").

What you need is a new legal charter called something other than a DoW (so as not to drag the Hague Convention into things) but with some similar effects. Assuming we wish to avoid having to rely on the UN for anything, this "hunting license" would have to gain a degree of international legitimacy (assuming we want some, which we should) via a series of treaties with our best allies. But I foresee huge difficulties in trying to draft anything truly useful.

George W. and Barack H. have muddled through relying on a series of executive orders, a few court cases, some loosely-worded legislation, and the patience of a world that in general has no more liking of Islamicist terrorists than you. It's been ugly, but I really don't think any legalistic formality such as you wish for would do much to neaten things up, and the effort could open up lots of new cans of worms.

IN LATE NEWS:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Two U.S. attorneys will lead a pair of criminal investigations already under way into possible unauthorized disclosures of classified information within the executive and legislative branches of government, Attorney General Eric Holder said Friday.

The announcement of the appointments followed President Barack Obama's denial that the White House had deliberately leaked classified national security information that was flattering to him in this election year, calling such allegations "offensive" and "wrong." He promised investigations into the source of leaks about U.S. involvement in cyber-attacks on Iran and drone strikes on suspected terrorists.

source: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120609/D9V9ADPO1.html

I credit this welcome development entirely to Doctor Fate's loud voice.