swiftboat part 2

[blankslate]

I applaud the fact that Obama gave the orders for our military to invade a friendly countries borders, kill their citizens and assassinate a foreign leader without benefit of a trial. I hope it happens in Cuba and Venezuela and perhaps Argentina sometime soon. Rah Rah Obama!

Apparently we had envoys in Afghanistan trying to get them to turn over Bin Laden
http://www.infowars.com/saved pages/Prior_Knowledge/US_met_taliban.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...node=&contentId=A3483-2001Oct28&notFound=true

On Feb. 3, 1999, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Karl E. Inderfurth, the Clinton administration's point man for talks with the Taliban, and Michael Sheehan, State Department counterterrorism chief, went to Islamabad to deliver a stern message to the Taliban's deputy foreign minister, Abdul Jalil: The United States henceforth would hold the Taliban responsible for any terrorist act by bin Laden.
By that time, bin Laden had been indicted for his alleged role in the embassy bombings. The officials reviewed the indictment in detail with the Taliban and offered to provide more evidence if the Taliban sent a delegation to New York. The Taliban did not do so.
Immediately after the U.S. warning, Taliban security forces took bin Laden from his Kandahar compound and spirited him away to a remote site, according to media reports at the time. They also seized his satellite communications and barred him from contact with the media.
Publicly, the Taliban said they no longer knew where he was. Inderfurth now says the United States interpreted such statements "as an effort to evade their responsibility to turn him over."
Others, however, say the cryptic statements should have been interpreted differently. Bearden, for example, believes the Taliban more than once set up bin Laden for capture by the United States and communicated its intent by saying he was lost.
"Every time the Afghans said, 'He's lost again,' they are saying something. They are saying, 'He's no longer under our protection,' " Bearden said. "They thought they were signaling us subtly, and we don't do signals."

Looks like wp.com took down the text but not before someone else saved it.

Apparently President Bush got an offer by the Taliban to turn over Bin Laden to a 3rd country.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

President George Bush rejected as "non-negotiable" an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in Afghanistan.

Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban "turn [bin Laden] over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over." He added, "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty". In Jalalabad, deputy prime minister beloved patriot Abdul Kabir - the third most powerful figure in the ruling Taliban regime - told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US, but added: "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country".

So I guess no one wanted to put Bin Laden on trial.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Or perhaps, Reps and Dems are both corporatists, but the Dems just believe in throwing out the occasional sop to the workers. Which, of course, is anathema to some....

Let them throw it. Just do not take it from my pocket involuntarily. And make sure that.those you give it to, fo some work for the public as a result of receiving it. If those restrictions are to tough, take it from the pockets of the ones that want to allow misuse.

 

[EagleKeeper]

If turned over to Pakistan, do you think we would have seen him?

 

[zinfamous]

Well obviously if you are looking for someone you don't want him to know you are

OK, I lol.

 

[monovillage]

Apparently we had envoys in Afghanistan trying to get them to turn over Bin Laden
http://www.infowars.com/saved pages/Prior_Knowledge/US_met_taliban.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...node=&contentId=A3483-2001Oct28&notFound=true
Looks like wp.com took down the text but not before someone else saved it.
Apparently President Bush got an offer by the Taliban to turn over Bin Laden to a 3rd country.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5
So I guess no one wanted to put Bin Laden on trial.

For some reason you guys think i'm insulting Obama. I'm not insulting Obama I think he did what needed to be done and it was for the good of the country. He invaded another country and assassinated several people without benefit of a trial. I think it's a good thing. I would have supported Bush if he had done it or Cheney if he had ordered it.

I'm not making Obama, i'm making fun of his hypocrite supporters who would have shit their pants if Bush had done the same thing.

 

[zinfamous]

For some reason you guys think i'm insulting Obama. I'm not insulting Obama I think he did what needed to be done and it was for the good of the country. He invaded another country and assassinated several people without benefit of a trial. I think it's a good thing. I would have supported Bush if he had done it or Cheney if he had ordered it.

I'm not making insulting Obama, i'm making fun of his hypocrite supporters who would have shit their pants if Bush had done the same thing.

You make a lot of assumptions.

Frankly, I would have supported Bush doing the same thing, too. But as with Obama, I would also have problems with how it was done (being that I am an American, and I tend to believe in American values).

I also have a problem with the assassination of a US citizen, on international soil, via predator drone; despite the fact that I feel it was necessary and certainly warranted. I don't believe that these things should happen--I believe they are squarely unconstitutional--but I also believe these actions to have been necessary and proper.

Thank God the constitution is a living document that is bound only to the shifting nature of humanity, and not some Victorian-age ideal of society and economy.

 

[kage69]

You make a lot of assumptions.

Frankly, I would have supported Bush doing the same thing, too. But as with Obama, I would also have problems with how it was done (being that I am an American, and I tend to believe in American values).

I also have a problem with the assassination of a US citizen, on international soil, via predator drone; despite the fact that I feel it was necessary and certainly warranted. I don't believe that these things should happen--I believe they are squarely unconstitutional--but I also believe these actions to have been necessary and proper.

Thank God the constitution is a living document that is bound only to the shifting nature of humanity, and not some Victorian-age ideal of society and economy.

Extremely well said zin.

My take on the assassination issue is quite similar to your own. Fact of the matter is sometimes some people need to be removed from the situation, their "citizenship revoked" as it were. I don't like it, but that's the way the world rolls sometimes. It's no different than when a psycho kills people and takes a hostage to protect himself, only to be taken out finally with a precision shot. You give people chances to comply, but if they ignore you and insist on killing others well then sorry, one serving of lead poisoning coming up.
Al Alawqi and friends could not be allowed to contribute to more American deaths, I give Obama props for getting serious and not letting up on AQ. I don't really care if their deaths are the products of R or D admins, they just need to be neutralized, period.

I feel there is more oversight and direct involvement in the Obama admin here as well, and while I still have some reservations, at least it's not Biden calling the shots and flipping everyone the bird, while Obama is in the next room working on a puzzle. If Obama ever gets a personal hit squad that answers to him alone, as per Cheney, then I would have a big problem with that. Intelligence services have oversight measures for a reason - so the tools used in those endeavors aren't abused.

Hey if al Alawqi's death was such an affront, then why don't I hear the usual suspects raging about every time law enforcement is forced to kill a gunman due to him being a threat to another cop or citizen?

 

[Arglebargle]

Let them throw it. Just do not take it from my pocket involuntarily. And make sure that.those you give it to, fo some work for the public as a result of receiving it. If those restrictions are to tough, take it from the pockets of the ones that want to allow misuse.

Allowing people to democratically assign their taxes to the purposes they want is an interesting idea, but not one that is legally feasible right now. Don't know of any country that has done that. Probably because it is frought with problems.

So no, you don't get to do that. Different subject too.

These OpSec guys are pretty much a wholly owned subsidiary of the extremist wing of the Republican party. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck, etc
.