You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #61: President Obama [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
Cherchez la Femme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-08-11 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #20
61. President Obama
did, however, act in a serious, somber, respectful (& I don't mean respectful as towards OBL), statesmanlike way.

--what some of these people are doing are taking any criticism of the public, hypocritical displays of wild jubilation in the streets which we decry others doing as barbaric, even subhuman
as a rebuke against our President! Go figure. :shrug: You would think that sub-set would declaim the frat-party atmosphere and suggest perhaps people should follow Obama's lead! Oh, but no...


Others, so I believe, are being critical because they themselves reacted that way.


And personally, IMO the "Deather" slander used against DU'ers here is pathetic and patently untrue. Nowhere have I seen any doubt that OBL is indeed dead.
What I have seen is the desire for the U.S. to follow the Rule of Law, to practice what they preach so to speak; along with the huge benefit of being able to actually interview/interrogate bin Laden
--no, he wouldn't give up any future operations but we've got all those hard drives anyhow; still, he would brag, IMO, (and that bragging could or could not be released to the country & the world at the government's discretion)

We'd learn much in that way.
Very much!

Seriously, what are his wives (that we're 'so eager to interview') or children going to tell us? I don't think for a New York second that OBL shared operations with his wives. Their duty, y'know, is to bear children, keep up the household and to bring honor to him (or die!). He'd probably figure their poor female brains couldn't possibly comprehend! Why on earth would we think that his wives, and now we know even his children (as he stipulated in his will that none of his children were to join Al Qaeda) would be 'in on' any details regarding his evil schemes?

...the entire thing is just outright ridiculous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -The Hand Wringing Over Osamas 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 
 

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC