Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditLast week, I wrote a post here about the emergence of a parallel new Bush admininstration doctrine that allows US forces to raid countries at will whenever supposedly "actionable intelligence" reveals the presence of bad guys.
Today, in the New York Times, there is explosive confirmation of that:
The United States military since 2004 has used broad, secret authority to carry out nearly a dozen previously undisclosed attacks against Al Qaeda and other militants in Syria, Pakistan and elsewhere, according to senior American officials.These military raids, typically carried out by Special Operations forces, were authorized by a classified order that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld signed in the spring of 2004 with the approval of President Bush, the officials said. The secret order gave the military new authority to attack the Qaeda terrorist network anywhere in the world, and a more sweeping mandate to conduct operations in countries not at war with the United States. ...
The 2004 order identifies 15 to 20 countries, including Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and several other Persian Gulf states, where Qaeda militants were believed to be operating or to have sought sanctuary, a senior administration official said.
This is outrageous, and it gives President Obama yet another secret Bush directive to undo at one minute after noon on January 20. He should also make sure to seek out and fire every single lawyer at the Defense Department and Justice Deparment who approved this order.
Once that's done, Obama and his national security team ought to start the process of reining in the sprawling, out-of-control US special forces. The Joint Special Operations Command and the office of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations have run amuck, and it's long overdue that they have their wings clipped.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
Raise your hand if you actually didn't figure this out already. I think everyone knew they were doing this, this is just the evidence needed to pin it. I think it goes beyond just Persian Gulf states. I think we all knew they were secretly going into other countries.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/10/2008 @ 11:11am
Yes let's not go after Al Qaeda. I mean those guys are just misunderstood freedom fighters. Maybe we can give them safe haven in Chicago.
Posted by abell12ct at 11/10/2008 @ 11:12am
What's funny to me is that the Bush administration thinks that the Bush signature turns off international law.
"Yes let's not go after Al Qaeda. I mean those guys are just misunderstood freedom fighters. Maybe we can give them safe haven in Chicago. Posted by abell12ct at 11/10/2008 @ 11:12am"
No instead lets ignore international law and start invading any country we want without permission from the people who run the country. Much better. What would you do if Russian forces appeared in your backyard to come take your neighbor?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/10/2008 @ 11:14am
Yes let's not go after Al Qaeda. I mean those guys are just misunderstood freedom fighters. Maybe we can give them safe haven in Chicago. Posted by abell12ct at 11/10/2008 @ 11:12am
Oh and remember this, don't complain when Iran or Saudi Arabia kills 20 American troops because they went into their countries under a US executive order without the permission of the people in charge of the country.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/10/2008 @ 11:18am
"Occasionally, the officials said, Special Operations troops would land in Somalia to assess the strikes' results. On Jan. 7, 2007, an AC-130 struck an isolated fishing village near the Kenyan border, and within hours, American commandos and Ethiopian troops were examining the rubble to determine whether any Qaeda operatives had been killed."
Hmmm. Weird how we aren't just capturing Al Qaeda terrorists, we are also destroying entire villages of men, women and children.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/10/2008 @ 11:21am
"Bush administration officials have shown a determination to operate under an expansive definition of self-defense that provides a legal rationale for strikes on militant targets in sovereign nations without those countries' consent."
Then we wonder why the rest of the world hates us. I guarantee you, everyone on here who will defend this action would be irate if another country were operating inside of ours without our permission.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/10/2008 @ 11:29am
'Once that's done, Obama and his national security team ought to start the process of reining in the sprawling, out-of-control US special forces. The Joint Special Operations Command and the office of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations have run amuck, and it's long overdue that they have their wings clipped.'
'Ought to' is a phrase we often hear from our leaders in Washington, and generally in remorseful hindsight. Is it equally plausible that Obama is and has been in the process of being "reined in" by the very forces you fear? I hope not. His stand on FISA and his vague and uncertain policy on Iraq and Afghanistan (including Pakistan) makes me wonder and worry.
Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2008 @ 11:32am
Oh and remember this, don't complain when Iran or Saudi Arabia kills 20 American troops because they went into their countries under a US executive order without the permission of the people in charge of the country.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/10/2008 @ 11:18am | ignore this person | warn this person
Yeah....then we can formally declare them all terrorists, and offer irrefutable proof that they are aiding and abetting Osama.
Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2008 @ 11:38am
start invading any country we want without permission from the people who run the country
Posted by Cccomfo1
Do most countries give permission to invade?
Posted by abell12ct at 11/10/2008 @ 11:52am
abel, do you think Mexican police/army should be able to track drug trafficers down inside the US, killing them if necessary, including being able to inflict casualties on American civilians with no consequences?
Posted by crabwalk at 11/10/2008 @ 12:06pm
Obama has signalled that he is willing to cross borders to hunt down suspected terrorist. The right has supported this dogma, but, do they offer the same leeway for foriegn governments to act inside the US? In addition to the Mexico analogy above, would this allow Raul Castro to hunt down Cuban exiles and those that plot the overthrow of the Cuban government? How about Saudi Arabia hunting down democracy advocates?
How slippery of a slope do we want to build?
Posted by crabwalk at 11/10/2008 @ 12:09pm
If we weren't doing anything to stop drug traffickers.... yes
Posted by abell12ct at 11/10/2008 @ 12:09pm
Then we wonder why the rest of the world hates us. I guarantee you, everyone on here who will defend this action would be irate if another country were operating inside of ours without our permission.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/10/2008 @ 11:29am
So, you like relying on international law? Well here's what international law has gotten the US so far...the embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya, the USS Cole, Khobar Towers bombing, the first WTC bombing and my personal favorite - repeated refusals to take Bin Laden into custody (from Sudan) at a price tag of about $3B. Looking back, it would have been a heckuva lot cheaper then 2 wars.
Posted by ACook at 11/10/2008 @ 12:11pm
But drug traffickers are supplying the U.S. with something it wants so there is a difference there. I mean who doesn't like drugs?
Posted by abell12ct at 11/10/2008 @ 12:20pm
Abel, drugs are readily available on the streets, in schools, in the homes of white collar types. Cocaine is cheaper now than it was in the 1980's, marijuana is more potent and of similar price as it was in the 1980's. Ecstacy and neth are readily available to any that seek it out.
So, it sure looks like the US govt policy of prohibition/inderdiction is not succeeding. Therefore I assume that would be ok with Mexican police/army wandering about your town shooting anybody they think is a drug dealer? "Actionable intelligence" would justify such actions according to the Bush Doctrine.
"Slip sliding away, slip sliding away You know the nearer your destination, the more you slip sliding away
Whoah God only knows, God makes his plan
The informations unavailable to the mortal man
Were workin our jobs, collect our pay
Believe were gliding down the highway, when in fact were slip sliding away"
Posted by crabwalk at 11/10/2008 @ 12:20pm
Would it be OK for the US military to flatten Plano Texas if "actionable intelligence " told us that terrorists were hiding there?
[In May 2003, white supremacists in Texas were caught with a sodium cyanide bomb, other bombs, illegal weapons, hate literature, fake I.D., and chemicals, including hydrochloric acid and nitric acid. In mid-November, three people pleaded guilty to related charges, while seized documents indicate that there are other co-conspirators at large. The feds have served "hundreds of subpoenas across the country," and the plot has been included in the President's daily intelligence briefings]
Posted by crabwalk at 11/10/2008 @ 12:24pm
But the Mexican army is probably making money on drug deals so they don't want it to stop. And Saudis already killed Democracy advocates in this country.
Posted by abell12ct at 11/10/2008 @ 12:24pm
Would it be OK for the US military to flatten Plano Texas if "actionable intelligence " told us that terrorists were hiding there?
How many?
Posted by abell12ct at 11/10/2008 @ 12:25pm
Posted by crabwalk at 11/10/2008 @ 12:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Can't wait for Morales to present evidence justifying expulsion of DEA agents from Bolivia to Obama. Should be interesting.
Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2008 @ 12:27pm
And would it be necessary to "flatten Plano" to take them out or just 2 laser guided missiles? Have we flattened towns in other countries with the special op missions that are now being traitorously leaked by the NYT?
Posted by abell12ct at 11/10/2008 @ 12:27pm
Raul, able says it would be fine for you to bring your troops into the US to hunt down terrorists, some of whom have been freed by the US govt.
Hugo, abel says you may join Raul.
[WASHINGTON (FinalCall.com) - There have been 47 years of constant "terrorist-like" activities going on in Cuba and against Cubans, and the United States government may have a hand in the terror with its harboring of one of the chief "terrorists"--Luis Posada Carriles.
By contrast, five Cubans who opposed anti-Cuban terrorist activities, sponsored and organized in this country, have been unjustly imprisoned since September 1998. They are the Cuban 5.
Mr. Posada goes on trial in mid-May on immigration charges, rather than terrorism-related charges. A federal judge released the anti-Castro Cuban militant on bail in April, even though The Miami Herald is reporting that the FBI now believes Mr. Posada was the mastermind of a series of deadly bombings in Cuba in the 1990s, in addition to charges he masterminded a 1976 Cuban airline bombing which killed 73 innocent people.
Both Venezuela and Cuba would like to extradite Mr. Posada so he can be tried for bombing the airliner. America's sanctuary for Mr. Posada is just one of the "atrocities" the United States government is committing against Cuba, according to Paul Minott of the Jamaican Committee to Free the Cuban 5.]
Posted by crabwalk at 11/10/2008 @ 12:28pm
And what do you know about Plano? Is there something you aren't telling us?
Posted by abell12ct at 11/10/2008 @ 12:29pm
Well then Cuba has every right to try and kill him.
Posted by abell12ct at 11/10/2008 @ 12:30pm
[JALALABAD (AFGHANISTAN), DEC. 1. Witnesses said a coalition bombing raid in eastern Afghanistan destroyed a village and killed between 100 and 200 civilians on Saturday.]
[Associated Press, Afghanistan guardian.co.uk, Friday August 12 2005 01.19 BST
Villagers in Afghanistan said yesterday that US warplanes had bombed houses, killing several civilians and wounding others, including a baby, as they hunted militants.]
[
)An Afghan man lifts the head of a child who along with 11 other civilians died during US air raids in Kabul on October 28, 2001, witnesses said a man and his seven children were killed when a bomb crashed through their home. (AP photo))
US helicopter gunships and jets today fired on an Afghan wedding, killing or injuring at least 250 civilians, witnesses and hospital officials said. ]
abel, I think there is something in your holy book about reaping and sowing. Check it out.
]
Posted by crabwalk at 11/10/2008 @ 12:34pm
Well then Cuba has every right to try and kill him.
Posted by abell12ct at 11/10/2008 @ 12:30pm
In your town? With overwhelming force?
Posted by crabwalk at 11/10/2008 @ 12:35pm
Looking back, it would have been a heckuva lot cheaper then 2 wars.
Posted by ACook at 11/10/2008 @ 12:11pm | warn this person
Ever get the feeling that this whole GWOT thing isn't a war meant to be won, but rather, an ongoing justification?
Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2008 @ 12:40pm
Sure go ahead
Posted by abell12ct at 11/10/2008 @ 12:40pm
I mean Obama is going to kill us all anyway
Posted by abell12ct at 11/10/2008 @ 12:42pm
US helicopter gunships and jets today fired on an Afghan wedding, killing or injuring at least 250 civilians, witnesses and hospital officials said
Is this according to the TALIBAN witnesses?
Posted by abell12ct at 11/10/2008 @ 12:43pm
And how do you know the Cubans aren't killing people here in the U.S. right now?
Posted by abell12ct at 11/10/2008 @ 12:44pm
I mean Obama is going to kill us all anyway----Posted by abell12ct at 11/10/2008 @ 12:42pm
How?
Posted by Mask at 11/10/2008 @ 12:45pm
We know the Saudis were
Posted by abell12ct at 11/10/2008 @ 12:45pm
How? Posted by Mask
Any number of ways. By letting down our military stance or by left wing economics etc....
Posted by abell12ct at 11/10/2008 @ 12:46pm
Have we flattened towns in other countries with the special op missions that are now being traitorously leaked by the NYT? Posted by abell12ct at 11/10/2008 @ 12:27pm
Yes we have actually. I quoted a line from it of a fishing down that was flatten by gunships.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/10/2008 @ 12:50pm
So I suppose if a bunch of terrorists had a nuclear bomb in Mexico you wouldn't want to go in and try and stop them unless Mexico gave you permission?
Posted by abell12ct at 11/10/2008 @ 12:51pm
I mean Obama is going to kill us all anyway Posted by abell12ct at 11/10/2008 @ 12:42pm
Prime example of the brainwashing of the right wing propaganda machine and the stupidity of partisanship that this country has taken.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/10/2008 @ 12:51pm
So I suppose if a bunch of terrorists had a nuclear bomb in Mexico you wouldn't want to go in and try and stop them unless Mexico gave you permission? Posted by abell12ct at 11/10/2008 @ 12:51p
I suppose if terrorists had a bomb in Mexico you would propose nuking Mexico to stop them?
Look I can make completely extreme examples too.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/10/2008 @ 12:53pm
I suppose if Saddam had 20,000 litres of anthrax.....
I suppose if Jose Padilla was going to setr of a dirty bomb....
I suppose if Atta had met with Iraqi intelligence in prague.....
Abel, I really can't wait till Raul sends a death squad into Miami. I think I know what your reaction will be.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/10/2008 @ 12:54pm
Yes we have actually. I quoted a line from it of a fishing down that was flatten by gunships. Posted by Cccomfo1
Ok I agree with you. We need to improve our aim.
Posted by abell12ct at 11/10/2008 @ 12:54pm
Well Saddam did have tons and tons of Yellowcake uranium.
Posted by abell12ct at 11/10/2008 @ 12:55pm
Abel, I really can't wait till Raul sends a death squad into Miami. I think I know what your reaction will be. Posted by crabwalk
How do you know he hasn't?
Posted by abell12ct at 11/10/2008 @ 12:55pm
One more thing before I cut and run....
BOO!
Posted by crabwalk at 11/10/2008 @ 12:56pm
Well Saddam did have tons and tons of Yellowcake uranium.
Posted by abell12ct at 11/10/2008 @ 12:55pm
Then why did he need more from Niger?
Propaganda is no way to set policy.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/10/2008 @ 12:57pm
Osama planning another attack that will outdo 9/11?
Check out ABC news today. We are not out of the woods yet folks. Fear mongering is still alive and well.
Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2008 @ 1:01pm
November 9, 2008 - jihadwatch.org -
Excerpt from:
Osama planning U.S. attack to outdo 9/11?
Of course, we have heard this before, and it is quite possibly just another attempt to "strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah" (Qur'an 8:60). But Jane Novak explains why there may be more to it this time. "Warning of new bin Laden attack," by Paola Totaro in The Age, November 10 (thanks to Armies of Liberation):
OSAMA bin Laden is planning an attack against the United States that will "outdo by far" September 11, an Arab newspaper in London has reported. And according to a former senior Yemeni al-Qaeda operative, the terrorist organisation has entered a "positive phase", reinforcing specific training camps around the world that will lead the next "wave of action" against the West.
The warning, on the front page of an Arabic newspaper published in London, Al-Quds Al-Arabi - and widely reported in the major Italian papers - quotes a person described as being "very close to al-Qaeda" in Yemen......
Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2008 @ 1:09pm
Then why did he need more from Niger? Propaganda is no way to set policy. Posted by crabwalk
I don't know but it was widely reported when we helped transfer the yellowcake to Canada.
Posted by abell12ct at 11/10/2008 @ 1:13pm
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/07/iraq.uranium/
Posted by abell12ct at 11/10/2008 @ 1:14pm
Propaganda is no way to set policy. Posted by crabwalk
So Stop doing it.
Posted by abell12ct at 11/10/2008 @ 1:16pm
But the Mexican army is probably making money on drug deals so they don't want it to stop. And Saudis already killed Democracy advocates in this country.
Posted by abell12ct at 11/10/2008 @ 12:24pm
who buys the drugs?
who buys the oil?
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/10/2008 @ 1:58pm
Why does al Qaeda attack US interests?
Oh, that's right. They hate us for our democracy and our American way of life.
Of course, our way of life as of late has been swirling down the commode, and the Bushies have seen to it that our 21st century version of democracy, far from being the envy of the world, has become the punchline for every nation from the UK to the UAR.
But by all means, let's piss on the rule of law, both foreign and domestic, as long as it keeps frightened little piss-ants feeling safe.
Yeccchh...
Posted by drhammer at 11/10/2008 @ 2:35pm
God only knows what kind idiocy has occurred in the Bush Administration. Al-Qaida is the enemy of most of these countries, and the Administration could have worked with their intelligence services on the al-Qaida threat. Instead of working with people, they would rather threaten them.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 11/10/2008 @ 3:16pm
Posted by abell12ct at 11/10/2008 @ 12:46pm
You said he IS going to kill us....
sounded pretty definite about it too?!?!?!
Posted by Mask at 11/10/2008 @ 4:16pm
Is this according to the TALIBAN witnesses? Posted by abell12ct at 11/10/2008 @ 12:43pm |
that's right ABEL, taliban have infiltrated the US military!!! annie, better git ur guns!
[WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Thirty-three Afghan civilians died during U.S. air strikes in August on a village in western Afghanistan, the U.S. military said on Wednesday, dramatically increasing the U.S. estimate of the death toll in an action that has strained U.S.-Afghan relations.]
[The Los Angeles Times found that in a 5-month period from October 7, 2001 to February 28, 2002, there were between 1,067 and 1,201 civilian deaths from the bombing campaign reported in U.S., British, and Pakistani newspapers and international wire services.
...According to Marc W. Herold's extensive database, Dossier on Civilian Victims of United States' Aerial Bombing, between 3,100 and 3,600 civilians were directly killed by U.S. Operation Enduring Freedom bombing and Special Forces attacks between October 7, 2001 and June 3, 2003. This estimate counts only "impact deaths" - deaths that occurred in the immediate aftermath of an explosion or shooting - and does not count deaths that occurred later as a result of injuries sustained, or deaths that occurred as an indirect consequence of the U.S. airstrikes and invasion.]WIKI
Posted by crabwalk at 11/10/2008 @ 4:21pm
It also looks like the Taliban have infiltrated the office of the Afghan president:
-Karzai has long pleaded with the U.S. and NATO to prevent civilian casualties. Last week he appealed to U.S. President-elect Barack Obama to ensure that Afghan civilians are not killed in coalition operations.
According to an AP count of civilian deaths this year, U.S. or NATO forces have killed at least 275 civilians, while 590 have died from militant-caused violence like suicide bombs.-WTOPNEWS
The killing of civilians needs to stop. Both by the Taliban and by NATO forces. If we have to kill 1/2 as many civilians as the Taliban to "win", are we going to be able to win?
Posted by crabwalk at 11/10/2008 @ 4:26pm
How do I know Cuba isn't operating death squads in the US?
Well, Raul would tell Hugo, Hugo would tell Jane Fonda, Jane would tell Michael Moore and he would tell me. Or sometimes Jane just emails the "Leftist Plot" and we get our orders and news that way. That way the majority of worlds scientists get in on it quicker and we are also able to let the NYT know to cover it up.
but you knew that.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/10/2008 @ 4:30pm
All right have your way. Let the terrorists go. We'll talk to them and they will see the light. I am gone from this website. You guys are just too much to bear. I wish you all good luck and be safe.
Posted by abell12ct at 11/10/2008 @ 5:59pm
All right have your way. Let the terrorists go. We'll talk to them and they will see the light. I am gone from this website. You guys are just too much to bear. I wish you all good luck and be safe.
Posted by abell12ct at 11/10/2008 @ 5:59pm
Awesome! Another crazy!
How ya doin' crazy?
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/10/2008 @ 6:52pm
I mean, it would be rather silly to argue the finer points of international law with somebody who has no problem with Cuba exterminating American civilians in order to capture/kill violators of Cuban law.
Hilarious.
I hope your house is the first to "accidentally" catch fire.
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/10/2008 @ 6:55pm
There are situations, thousands, where negotiating with terrorists have worked and several very important organisations, like the Community of San Igerio, who specialise in this.
The reason why you didn't hear about them is they were successful, thank goodness.
In fact there are two respected organisations in Switzerland that regularly bring together people with grievances of catastrophic levels, and make in roads.
The only problem is there are always some trouble makers, usually right wing Americans, with a vested interest in keeping the trouble going.
There are some really silly arguments on this page today. This is a hopeful time, change for all is good.
The GOP needs fresh blood and some soul searching as they just lost an election. What could be better than that. And the rest of us can have a break from all the lying and negativity etc for a bit which is fine too. Why should it all go only one way, for that matter? For 8 years there have been at least 50+% of Americans who weren't Bush fans (and most of the rest of the world, which does count for something).
And I will say it again, terrorist killing and vile action is no justification for others to join their folly. No way out that way, as we can see. It is always so easy to advocate ignoring international law when it comes to someone elses country. Probably alot of Bush/McCain supporters are social darwinists, and wouldn't mind scratching a bunch of bottom rung US Citizens too, like the canon fodder they send off weekly to Iraq!
Empathy is a really useful tool on all levels, something Obama knows for certain and most GOP advocates have no clue about.
Posted by marilynm at 11/10/2008 @ 7:06pm
NOPE!
"Talking" to terrorists is akin to letting them rape your wife, kidnap your children, and kill your dog!
Haven't you heard?
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/10/2008 @ 7:10pm
ABEL, I am sorry that you will no longer be coming around. Today especially you were quite amusing. I am also sorry that it seems that you have entirely missed the point.
good luck to you in future endeavors. Hopefully you will enlist and be abel to fulfill your desire to protect yourself from terrorists both domestic and foreign. Those of us that stay will continue to fight for our civil liberties, or "freedoms".
Posted by crabwalk at 11/10/2008 @ 7:38pm
abel, do you think Mexican police/army should be able to track drug trafficers down inside the US, killing them if necessary, including being able to inflict casualties on American civilians with no consequences? Posted by crabwalk at 11/10/2008 @ 12:06pm Why would they try and kill the people who are paying them? Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/10/2008 @ 4:58pm
Confused again, Lar...
MAy 10,2008, Rueters
CIUDAD JUAREZ, Mexico (Reuters) - Suspected drug gunmen ambushed and killed a Mexican police chief on Saturday in a murder campaign against senior policemen that has escalated in the past week.
Juan Antonio Roman, the No. 2 policeman in the gritty border city of Ciudad Juarez, was riddled with bullets outside his home as he stepped from his pickup truck in the early hours of the morning, a police spokesman said.
He was the sixth senior policeman killed throughout the country this week in a blow to President Felipe Calderon's fight against well-armed cartels that smuggle cocaine, marijuana and amphetamines to the United States.
...Some 1,100 people have died so far this year as the drug gangs battle each other and security forces. Calderon has deployed 25,000 troops and federal police to fight the gangs.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/10/2008 @ 7:50pm
Posted by abell12ct at 11/10/2008 @ 5:59pm
I'm betting he'll be back before Christmas.
Posted by Mask at 11/10/2008 @ 10:02pm
It's always the same bullshit. Either it's the bullshit that all Democrats want to do is negotiate with terrorists or a completely concocted scenario which involves nuclear bombs in Mexico or someplace else that the U.S. has to invade to stop them.
Does anyone ever have a solution or just more scary bullshit. Why would they have a bomb in Mexico? They would have a better chance just shipping it in a cargo container addressed to Wall-Mart.
Posted by koroviev at 11/11/2008 @ 01:56am
Obama has made it pretty clear recently, through both direct speech and the appointees he seems to be considering, that he's not going to change any of this.
And the critics of International Law need to think about the system that it replaced; the archaic post-Westphalian system of 'balance-of-power' and oblique alliances that led directly to the two World Wars. Also consider the main stick in the spokes of Internation Law, the main hinderance -- the US.
Posted by Scroot at 11/11/2008 @ 09:43am
This is what Ralph Nader would do.
But we didn't elect him did we?
Posted by neaguy at 11/11/2008 @ 11:53am
>>>This is outrageous, and it gives President Obama yet another secret Bush directive to undo at one minute after noon on January 20. He should also make sure to seek out and fire every single lawyer at the Defense Department and Justice Deparment who approved this order.<<<
ROBERT DREYFUSS,
I think here is where you could use a healthy dose of pragmatism. I am a big proponent of international law, and my preference would be to use UN sanctioned "international" strike forces to carry out these sort of operations so that no one country appears to be attacking another. But absent such an international strike force, what are we to do to reign in Al Qaeda? I really wish you would answer this, as merely pointing out what Obama "can't" do is not very constructive.
Allowing Al Qaeda operatives to set up sanctuary in other countries cannot be tolerated if we are to be serious about preventing another 9/11 attack. And one certainly cannot get UN Security Council approval "each time" we aware of their operatives presence in a third country, as they would simply flee once it is known that authority is being sought to cross the border to get them.
I am "very" interested in what your proposed alternative would be.
Posted by Metteyya at 11/11/2008 @ 12:29pm
Posted by Metteyya at 11/11/2008 @ 12:29pm
What you bring up is a whole slew of problems that I wish someone (read: Obama) would at least mention. It's clear that the current format of the Security Council is incredibly flawed - specifically the requirement of unanimous decisions and/or permanent membership (a country ruled against by the ICJ should NOT be able to veto the forced sentencing of the court through the security council, as some permanent members have.)
It's clear that the blue helmets need not only to be managed better, but increased in number and authority. By honoring the dues that the US owes - both financially and in terms of feet on the ground - Obama has a chance to solve some of this.
If these two were solved, I see no inherent problem in drafting a provisional law that would allow a sort of 'instant-response' blue-helmet force to go in, based off of up to date intelligence, and find Al Qaeda and get the job done. The important thing is to fix the system to a point where one can establish that rule, then act on it.
Posted by Scroot at 11/11/2008 @ 1:40pm
Well then Cuba has every right to try and kill him. Posted by abell12ct at 11/10/2008 @ 12:30pm | ignore this person | warn this person
grrr, kill, kill
Posted by emile duBois at 11/13/2008 @ 09:13am
All right have your way. Let the terrorists go. We'll talk to them and they will see the light.
I am gone from this website.
You guys are just too much to bear. I wish you all good luck and be safe. Posted by abell12ct at 11/10/2008 @ 5:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person
another box of rocks bites the dust. just barely beat me to the ignore button.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/13/2008 @ 09:18am
I am "very" interested in what your proposed alternative would be. Posted by Metteyya at 11/11/2008 @ 12:29pm | ignore this person | warn this person
that good old american exceptionalism.
if we don't respect their borders why would they respect ours?
the alternative? persuade those countries to attack the problem.
I suspect it would have been possible to turn the Taleban against Bin laden.
in any case invading Afghanistan was ineffective and counterproductive.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/13/2008 @ 09:29am
Posted by Scroot at 11/11/2008 @ 1:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person
you won't find many countries to vote against their own sovereignty.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/13/2008 @ 09:31am