EFerrari
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun May-08-11 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #28 |
| 36. In your example, the non-state territories had no sovereignty to violate |
|
so that's something of a stretch.
Obama cannot use the rationale "Al Qaida is there" when he goes into Pakistan and Yemen. He is using the permission inherited from BushCo aka, the GWOT. I'm not trying to twist your OP but rather, to show you the underpinning.
Obama has asked that his administration stop using the phrase "global war on terror", preferring "overseas contingency operation" or some such jumble. But changing the label doesn't change the M.O.
|
| -The Hand Wringing Over Osama’s Death from Fellow Progressives is Unwarranted |
stevenleser |
May-08-11 09:24 AM |
#0 |
 -
Good, clear articulate writing and thinking. K&R |
patricia92243 |
May-08-11 09:30 AM |
#1 |
| -
There are no false moral equivalencies or hand wringings on his death |
mmonk |
May-08-11 09:32 AM |
#2 |
| -
Excellent post although there are quite a few around who |
PCIntern |
May-08-11 09:32 AM |
#3 |
 -
Wild accusation and almost certainly wrong. |
Bonobo |
May-08-11 10:01 AM |
#27 |
 -
Prove your contentions |
Cherchez la Femme |
May-08-11 12:06 PM |
#57 |
| -
Once you accept Bush's proposition that the entire planet is a war zone |
EFerrari |
May-08-11 09:33 AM |
#4 |
| -
I don't accept that proposition. That is a straw man. n/t |
stevenleser |
May-08-11 09:34 AM |
#8 |
| -
Not at all. It's the basic premise of the War on Terror. |
EFerrari |
May-08-11 09:37 AM |
#9 |
| -
I never asserted there is a war on terror and certainly not a global one. You are altering my |
stevenleser |
May-08-11 09:38 AM |
#10 |
| -
So in your war between the US and Al Qaida, what is the battlefield? |
EFerrari |
May-08-11 09:42 AM |
#14 |
| -
Generally, Afghanistan and Pakistan. n/t |
stevenleser |
May-08-11 09:46 AM |
#16 |
| -
The thing is, unless you accept the WOT's premise |
EFerrari |
May-08-11 10:00 AM |
#25 |
| -
No, that is not correct. International law has considered situations like this before |
stevenleser |
May-08-11 10:03 AM |
#28 |
| -
In your example, the non-state territories had no sovereignty to violate |
EFerrari |
May-08-11 10:24 AM |
#36 |
| -
You are now completely outside the premises of the OP with your comments. n/t |
stevenleser |
May-08-11 10:26 AM |
#37 |
| -
Not at all. |
EFerrari |
May-08-11 10:29 AM |
#38 |
| -
You incorrectly assume that a state of war can only exist between two states. Correcting for that |
BzaDem |
May-08-11 03:17 PM |
#79 |
| -
So, does Cuba have the right to come here and go after |
sabrina 1 |
May-09-11 04:32 PM |
#157 |
| -
Not Yemen? Not Saudi Arabia? Not Sudan? |
Cherchez la Femme |
May-08-11 12:13 PM |
#60 |
| -
That the world is a war zone is the national military policy. |
PufPuf23 |
May-08-11 10:12 AM |
#31 |
| -
That is outside of what I am arguing in the OP. n/t |
stevenleser |
May-08-11 10:15 AM |
#32 |
| -
Don't be obtuse. It is critical to your argument that bin Laden's death was a product of war. n/t |
Gormy Cuss |
May-08-11 11:49 AM |
#53 |
| -
Didn't you know? |
Cherchez la Femme |
May-08-11 12:09 PM |
#59 |
| -
Great post. |
JoePhilly |
May-08-11 09:33 AM |
#5 |
| -
Great post. K&R. nt |
sufrommich |
May-08-11 09:34 AM |
#6 |
| -
Well said. k&r |
Little Star |
May-08-11 09:34 AM |
#7 |
| -
Thank you for your thoughtful post. K&R nt |
Ilsa |
May-08-11 09:38 AM |
#11 |
| -
Excellent Steven. Kicked, Rec'ed and Bookmarked. |
phleshdef |
May-08-11 09:39 AM |
#12 |
| -
K&R |
jaxx |
May-08-11 09:40 AM |
#13 |
| -
Agree; well written, thought out and concise post. |
Ikonoklast |
May-08-11 09:43 AM |
#15 |
| -
Accidentally unrecced. |
tammywammy |
May-08-11 09:48 AM |
#17 |
| -
Glenn Greenwald has said it best: |
coalition_unwilling |
May-08-11 09:49 AM |
#18 |
| -
Its not a bin Laden exception. It is a war exception. International law is clear on this |
stevenleser |
May-08-11 09:53 AM |
#19 |
| -
Aside from the niggling little technicality ( so quaint and obsolete now as |
coalition_unwilling |
May-08-11 11:32 AM |
#49 |
| -
Congress did pass the AUMF almost unanimously. n/t |
BzaDem |
May-08-11 03:21 PM |
#83 |
| -
keep sailing that failboat all over the ocean of bitter. |
dionysus |
May-08-11 10:35 PM |
#115 |
| -
Why, dionysus! |
SDuderstadt |
May-09-11 04:31 PM |
#156 |
| -
America has no problem treating terrorism as a police problem |
hack89 |
May-08-11 10:36 AM |
#41 |
| -
So our CIA, and other approved contractors, aren't in the countries |
Cherchez la Femme |
May-08-11 12:54 PM |
#62 |
| -
I would hope they are crawling all over those countries... |
hack89 |
May-08-11 01:05 PM |
#65 |
| -
Your contention is |
Cherchez la Femme |
May-08-11 03:35 PM |
#91 |
| -
If Yemen doesn't have a functioning government, who is Obama giving all that |
EFerrari |
May-08-11 02:58 PM |
#74 |
| -
The Tribal areas of Pakistan are not governed by the national government |
hack89 |
May-08-11 03:08 PM |
#76 |
| -
I think you are mistaken on both counts. |
EFerrari |
May-08-11 03:17 PM |
#80 |
| -
But the Pakistan government exerts no control over the area |
hack89 |
May-08-11 03:24 PM |
#84 |
| -
Um, the default for international law is not to ignore it when it suits you. n/t |
EFerrari |
May-08-11 03:32 PM |
#88 |
| -
The default is not to let evil prevail |
hack89 |
May-08-11 05:41 PM |
#109 |
| -
Congress passed the Authorization to use Military Force almost unanimously. Not only did Obama |
BzaDem |
May-08-11 03:26 PM |
#85 |
| -
Indeed. No one else seems to see these easy analogies supposed to make this killing lawful. |
DirkGently |
May-08-11 11:36 AM |
#50 |
| -
It's easy to confine the issue |
hack89 |
May-08-11 01:17 PM |
#68 |
| -
Care to cite the U.S. statute (or statute in any body of international law) |
coalition_unwilling |
May-08-11 02:35 PM |
#72 |
| -
Self defense is a legitimate right under International law |
hack89 |
May-08-11 03:06 PM |
#75 |
| -
"There is no evidence . . . " - ah, evidence, that quaint and obsolete |
coalition_unwilling |
May-08-11 04:09 PM |
#98 |
| -
Not enough evidence to indict but |
Cherchez la Femme |
May-08-11 04:32 PM |
#101 |
| -
Just so you know I'm not making this up, the following quotation |
coalition_unwilling |
May-08-11 04:42 PM |
#102 |
| -
I never doubted you |
Cherchez la Femme |
May-08-11 04:53 PM |
#104 |
| -
You act like Greenwald's essay is any more accurate than Bush's view on "enhanced interrogation." |
BzaDem |
May-08-11 03:31 PM |
#87 |
| -
Actually for many I think it is not "hand-wringing" over his death percee... |
Bonobo |
May-08-11 09:54 AM |
#20 |
| -
President Obama |
Cherchez la Femme |
May-08-11 12:49 PM |
#61 |
| -
Your efforts are admirable. I don't buy it. 9-11 was a |
peacetalksforall |
May-08-11 09:55 AM |
#21 |
| -
International law's rules on war are not dependant on congress declaring war |
stevenleser |
May-08-11 09:56 AM |
#23 |
| -
Your wrong. US comes first and the two are attempted simultaneously. There would |
peacetalksforall |
May-08-11 11:56 AM |
#56 |
| -
No but |
Cherchez la Femme |
May-08-11 01:00 PM |
#63 |
| -
Authorization for Use of Military Force September 18, 2001 Public Law 107-40 |
BzaDem |
May-08-11 03:33 PM |
#89 |
| -
Jeebus, this has been gone over & over again |
Cherchez la Femme |
May-08-11 03:39 PM |
#92 |
| -
It should be gone over and over again until you and others who deny its existance return to reality. |
BzaDem |
May-08-11 03:40 PM |
#94 |
| -
I listened. I researched. I stil do not agree. |
Cherchez la Femme |
May-08-11 04:09 PM |
#99 |
| -
Yes, the joint resolution was done after the 9/11 attacks. Do you really think that supports your |
BzaDem |
May-08-11 11:54 PM |
#118 |
| -
Rhetorical war? You either live in a bubble or ignore all evidence that doesn't fit into your box. |
KittyWampus |
May-08-11 09:58 AM |
#24 |
| -
Yes, there is a war of words and threats. There is NO OFFICIAL war. |
peacetalksforall |
May-08-11 11:39 AM |
#51 |
| -
Agreed, but feasibility wasn't even considered. nt |
Cherchez la Femme |
May-08-11 01:02 PM |
#64 |
| -
Qualification: |
Cherchez la Femme |
May-08-11 05:21 PM |
#106 |
| -
That just flat out kicks ass. Very well done. |
pintobean |
May-08-11 09:55 AM |
#22 |
| -
Great post |
Mosby |
May-08-11 10:01 AM |
#26 |
| -
Why, do you think, the Nuremburg Trials were held, rather than summary executions? |
WinkyDink |
May-08-11 10:08 AM |
#29 |
| -
The answer is so simple. I am surprised you dont see it. |
stevenleser |
May-08-11 10:11 AM |
#30 |
| -
No Rules of Engagement permit shooting an unarmed enemy at point-blank range. Nor would the U.S. |
DirkGently |
May-08-11 11:25 AM |
#46 |
| -
Thank you. It was a 'hit job' and its defenders are really |
coalition_unwilling |
May-08-11 11:56 AM |
#55 |
| -
Recommending Post #46 by DirkGently ^^^ |
bvar22 |
May-08-11 03:10 PM |
#77 |
| -
You are wrong |
hack89 |
May-08-11 03:14 PM |
#78 |
| -
Could you please cite the legal authority that allows the United States |
EFerrari |
May-08-11 03:34 PM |
#90 |
| -
Authorization to use military force, passed 9/18/01. As for international law, if you are asserting |
BzaDem |
May-08-11 03:39 PM |
#93 |
| -
Burden of proof for killing is not the same as bike riding. Again, what will WE say when another |
DirkGently |
May-09-11 01:35 PM |
#147 |
| -
Lets flip the question |
hack89 |
May-08-11 05:39 PM |
#108 |
| -
The answer is there is no legal authority that allow the United States to do that. |
EFerrari |
May-09-11 12:49 PM |
#146 |
| -
Pakistan has the sovereign right to harbor and support terrorist |
hack89 |
May-09-11 01:59 PM |
#148 |
| -
You are jumbling up what is legal, what is expedient and what is right. |
EFerrari |
May-09-11 03:28 PM |
#149 |
| -
You have yet to show the law that permits Pakistan |
hack89 |
May-09-11 03:33 PM |
#150 |
| -
I don't have to prove Pakistan is a sovereign nation, it is self evident. n/t |
EFerrari |
May-09-11 03:47 PM |
#151 |
| -
So sovereign nations can wage proxy war with impunity? Interesting. |
hack89 |
May-09-11 04:14 PM |
#152 |
| -
You're shifting the goal posts again. n/t |
EFerrari |
May-09-11 04:30 PM |
#155 |
| -
No - you seem intent on making it impossible |
hack89 |
May-09-11 05:22 PM |
#161 |
| -
Because Eichmann wasn't running active Jihad |
Zax2me |
May-08-11 10:22 AM |
#34 |
| -
Still, they captured him |
Cherchez la Femme |
May-08-11 01:13 PM |
#67 |
| -
Only because it was easy to track and kidnap him |
hack89 |
May-08-11 03:20 PM |
#82 |
| -
We had OBL's mansion under surveillance for months |
Cherchez la Femme |
May-08-11 03:45 PM |
#95 |
| -
You are confusing two entirely separate situations. Eichmann was not at the time of capture a |
BzaDem |
May-08-11 03:48 PM |
#96 |
| -
*I'm* confused?! |
Cherchez la Femme |
May-08-11 04:47 PM |
#103 |
| -
With all due respect, I think your confusion may be a mock or |
coalition_unwilling |
May-08-11 10:54 PM |
#117 |
| -
The only people that need to stretch ingenuity beyond its natural limits are the people claiming it |
BzaDem |
May-09-11 12:00 AM |
#120 |
| -
The second |
Cherchez la Femme |
May-09-11 12:00 PM |
#145 |
| -
Yes, that was my point. You (not me) are confused. Not sure how I could have been more clear. |
BzaDem |
May-08-11 11:57 PM |
#119 |
| -
In the age of sucide bombers |
hack89 |
May-08-11 05:42 PM |
#110 |
| -
K & R |
Scurrilous |
May-08-11 10:21 AM |
#33 |
| -
K&R!,,, good insight |
Peacetrain |
May-08-11 10:24 AM |
#35 |
| -
There are always excellent reasons for the empire |
gratuitous |
May-08-11 10:30 AM |
#39 |
| -
I am happy to address any arguments that directly refute any of my premises. n/t |
stevenleser |
May-08-11 10:33 AM |
#40 |
| -
Done and done |
gratuitous |
May-08-11 05:13 PM |
#105 |
| -
I don't know one single progressive/liberal in real life who is hand wringing over this |
NNN0LHI |
May-08-11 10:42 AM |
#42 |
| -
Well, the UN has asked for a run down of the facts on this execution. |
EFerrari |
May-08-11 10:59 AM |
#44 |
| -
I don't recall any UN investigation into the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq |
NNN0LHI |
May-08-11 11:49 AM |
#54 |
| -
The UN is a highly politicized body and I wouldn't trust them with my laundry. |
EFerrari |
May-08-11 01:46 PM |
#70 |
| -
+10000000000000000000000 |
L0oniX |
May-08-11 01:07 PM |
#66 |
| -
So are you for it or against it? |
Cherchez la Femme |
May-08-11 01:34 PM |
#69 |
| -
Read this |
NNN0LHI |
May-08-11 01:51 PM |
#71 |
| -
Thank you |
Cherchez la Femme |
May-08-11 04:02 PM |
#97 |
| -
How many progressives\liberals do you know in 'real life'? I have |
coalition_unwilling |
May-08-11 05:33 PM |
#107 |
| -
Exactly. It's a point scoring troll. |
joshcryer |
May-09-11 12:19 AM |
#125 |
| -
K&R to THAT! |
Keith Bee |
May-08-11 10:43 AM |
#43 |
| -
If they surrender it is a war crime to slaughter them anyway. |
themadstork |
May-08-11 11:00 AM |
#45 |
| -
+1 |
Zorra |
May-08-11 11:27 AM |
#47 |
| -
It's not coming from just progressive, but those versed in international law. |
Puregonzo1188 |
May-08-11 11:30 AM |
#48 |
| -
K&R! We were indeed at war with Al Qaeda. |
backscatter712 |
May-08-11 11:41 AM |
#52 |
| -
k&r |
uppityperson |
May-08-11 12:08 PM |
#58 |
| -
It isn't if we believe in true justice and not just vengeance. |
alarimer |
May-08-11 02:44 PM |
#73 |
| -
bin Laden was planning killing of innocent people right up to his death. |
bluestate10 |
May-08-11 03:17 PM |
#81 |
| -
Most career criminals don't stop until their careers are over. |
EFerrari |
May-08-11 03:26 PM |
#86 |
| -
So the SEALs, who dropped in via Helicopter, not knowing |
JoePhilly |
May-08-11 05:46 PM |
#111 |
| -
Its interesting. Obama uses McChrystal's JSOC assassiantion program |
EFerrari |
May-09-11 12:08 AM |
#122 |
| -
i'm glad people with your views are far, far away from the levers of power in the democratic party. |
dionysus |
May-08-11 10:40 PM |
#116 |
| -
Yes, because due process of law is to toxic to our culture. |
EFerrari |
May-09-11 12:11 AM |
#123 |
| -
The process guaranteed by law (domestic and international) to Bin Laden was a bullet to the head, in |
BzaDem |
May-09-11 12:15 AM |
#124 |
| -
+1 |
joshcryer |
May-09-11 12:32 AM |
#126 |
| -
Thank you for |
billh58 |
May-08-11 04:19 PM |
#100 |
| -
No hand wringing.. just tired of hearing is name... |
lib2DaBone |
May-08-11 05:47 PM |
#112 |
| -
Outstanding. Thanks for this. nt |
Flatulo |
May-08-11 10:09 PM |
#113 |
| -
We shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan with massive military force, |
MadHound |
May-08-11 10:18 PM |
#114 |
| -
I'm still waiting for a clear explanation. |
grahamhgreen |
May-09-11 12:05 AM |
#121 |
| -
A Fatwa Is Not a Declaration of War |
SoDesuKa |
May-09-11 02:39 AM |
#127 |
| -
I wish I could recommend this response. I hope you will consider |
coalition_unwilling |
May-09-11 02:54 AM |
#129 |
| -
"Only a state can declare war." False. Once you correct for that false statement, your argument |
BzaDem |
May-09-11 02:59 AM |
#130 |
| -
Your comparison to Yamamoto is inaccurate. Not quite the same thing. |
Rex |
May-09-11 02:51 AM |
#128 |
| -
But that assumes one can't go to war against a non-state actor, and that is a false assumption. |
BzaDem |
May-09-11 03:04 AM |
#131 |
| -
No that doesn't. One was the military head of state during wartime. |
Rex |
May-09-11 03:07 AM |
#132 |
| -
That's like saying we couldn't have legally killed Hitler because he wasn't the head of Japan. |
BzaDem |
May-09-11 03:09 AM |
#133 |
| -
Wrong. |
Rex |
May-09-11 03:12 AM |
#134 |
| -
Says the person who cannot marshal one section of a single law that proves his argument. |
BzaDem |
May-09-11 03:14 AM |
#135 |
| -
You fail to grasp the facts in this matter. |
Rex |
May-09-11 03:17 AM |
#136 |
| -
The fact that you can't identify a SINGLE law to support your argument is your fault, at least if |
BzaDem |
May-09-11 03:17 AM |
#137 |
| -
LOL. I stand by what I said that Yamamoto and OBL are two different |
Rex |
May-09-11 03:20 AM |
#138 |
| -
Yes, you essentially quote yourself because you can't identify a single law that depends on the |
BzaDem |
May-09-11 03:22 AM |
#139 |
| -
Between a head of state and a citizen of a country? |
Rex |
May-09-11 03:24 AM |
#140 |
| -
The question is not whether there is a distinction (there is). The question is whether the |
BzaDem |
May-09-11 03:28 AM |
#141 |
| -
You are rambling. |
Rex |
May-09-11 03:29 AM |
#142 |
| -
If I were making an incorrect statement about the relevancy of a distinction, I would also find |
BzaDem |
May-09-11 03:30 AM |
#143 |
| -
Kicked for the Monday crowd n/t |
stevenleser |
May-09-11 11:37 AM |
#144 |
| -
k&r |
meow mix |
May-09-11 04:16 PM |
#153 |
| -
You MUST have better things to do than start another devisive thread! |
elias49 |
May-09-11 04:27 PM |
#154 |
| -
Well, I can correct the spelling of people who don't have much to offer in the way of debate... |
stevenleser |
May-09-11 04:56 PM |
#158 |
| -
I actually thought that yours was the best thought out |
EFerrari |
May-09-11 04:58 PM |
#159 |
| -
Meh. When I see a thread like this in the G/D forum |
elias49 |
May-09-11 06:38 PM |
#162 |
| -
Please define "Progressive" as you use the term in the OP please. |
PassingFair |
May-09-11 05:10 PM |
#160 |
| -
You only had to read the first sentence. |
stevenleser |
May-09-11 07:13 PM |
#163 |
| -
Check your OP again. You contradict yourself. nt |
PassingFair |
May-09-11 07:19 PM |
#164 |
| -
Keep telling yourself that. n/t |
stevenleser |
May-09-11 07:25 PM |
#165 |
| -
Well said and thanks |
quaker bill |
May-09-11 07:47 PM |
#166 |
| -
i'm as liberal as they come -here. i'm also good with OBL getting whacked |
upi402 |
May-09-11 08:47 PM |
#167 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread