Obama's Secret "Kill List"

[Mikeg]

Here's an example of President Obama's promised "change we can believe in":

A Measure of Change - Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will

By JO BECKER and SCOTT SHANE
New York Times
Published: May 29, 2012

WASHINGTON — This was the enemy, served up in the latest chart from the intelligence agencies: 15 Qaeda suspects in Yemen with Western ties. The mug shots and brief biographies resembled a high school yearbook layout. Several were Americans. Two were teenagers, including a girl who looked even younger than her 17 years.
President Obama, overseeing the regular Tuesday counterterrorism meeting of two dozen security officials in the White House Situation Room, took a moment to study the faces..........

The NYT has confirmed that President Obama has repudiated his former view that the so-called "war on terror" should be waged in the courts and has come around to embrace George W. Bush's policy that is should be waged militarily.

Furthermore - and shades of Lyndon Baines Johnson - he is picking the "targets" himself! Only now 45 years later, he's authorizing drone strikes instead of B-52 carpet-bombing strikes. After consulting his "baseball cards" at his weekly nomination meetings in the WH Situation Room, Obama adds his new "targets" to an ever-expanding list, with the bonus that he doesn't have to worry about putting the lives of our military personnel at risk while eliminating those "targets".

What's a little collateral damage, when you no longer have to worry about "inhumane" interrogation techniques or expanding the "enemy combatant" population within that detention center that somehow withstood the stroke of his "Executive Order" pen.

Discuss among yourselves - what happens to Obama's "kill list" policy after:
a) there is no longer any fresh intel available from newly-captured terrorists?
b) drones have replaced Guantánamo as the recruiting tool of choice for a seemingly endless supply of "militants"?
c) November 6, 2012?

[rb336]

The NYT has confirmed that President Obama has repudiated his former view that the so-called "war on terror" should be waged in the courts and has come around to embrace George W. Bush's policy that is should be waged militarily.

Where, exactly, does it say that? It sounds like it is pointing out that the President has kept all options open all along. I personally can not recall any instance when Obama said everything in the war on terror would only go through the courts. He always said terrorists would be tried in the courts "when feasible" as the article points out

[Ray1936]

Well, if we run out of terrorists to hit, we can change our attention to the Mexican drug cartels. Plenty to off there. Okay with me.

[Mikeg]

Where, exactly, does it say that? It sounds like it is pointing out that the President has kept all options open all along. I personally can not recall any instance when Obama said everything in the war on terror would only go through the courts. He always said terrorists would be tried in the courts "when feasible" as the article points out

Where does it say that he is actually using any of those carefully-crafted, non-military, open options when it comes to the Taliban and al-Qaeda "militants" on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Yemen? The only difference between the policies of Obama and Dubya is that those on the left are now silent about Obama's.

[ejames01]

Where does it say that he is actually using any of those carefully-crafted, non-military, open options when it comes to the Taliban and al-Qaeda "militants" on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Yemen? The only difference between the policies of Obama and Dubya is that those on the left are now silent about Obama's.

So the real problem is that you just don't like "The Left"?

[coracle]

From lucianne.com today;

[firstandten]

Boy, you sure put our prez in a no-win situation. If he had followed the liberal model of foreign policy that you guys would like to see, which is a false model by the way then you would be talking about how soft he is on terrorist, because lets face it thats what you really want to say.

But this man doesn't mind killing enemies of the state its just he does it surgically and doesn't go around bombing the hell out of people which is what you folks get off on. So you got to find something wrong with that has well.

If you said killing is wrong period, end-of-story your comments would be more credible

[firstandten]

Discuss among yourselves - what happens to Obama's "kill list" policy after:
a) there is no longer any fresh intel available from newly-captured terrorists?
b) drones have replaced Guantánamo as the recruiting tool of choice for a seemingly endless supply of "militants"?
c) November 6, 2012?

a) Terrorist are like drug dealers, you kill one and ten are ready to take his place, until you change the conditions in those countries things will stay the same

b) Again terrorist need something to rally around if its not drones, or Gitmo it would be something else.

c) On Nov 7 Obama will ask his national security advisors for an update on the ongoing kill list, in other words business as usual.

[oladub]

But this man doesn't mind killing enemies of the state its just he does it surgically and doesn't go around bombing the hell out of people which is what you folks get off on.

Libya: Bombs away with no declaration of war, in violation of the war powers act, and without the consent of Congress.

Terrorist are like drug dealers, you kill one and ten are ready to take his place, until you change the conditions in those countries things will stay the same.

Sounds like mission impossible. We should change conditions in Detroit first.

[Zacha341]

Impressive list -- -- yet while we're in this election cycle all such 'lists', legitimate or spurious, including some listed specifics will be dismissed as right-wing 'talking points'!

If the present POTUS is criticized for a policy, it's rolled off as just mud-slinging - not legitimate. Just a means for the other party to win! Sadly that is the way of it...

Once the president elect wins then we can 'maybe' challenge policies going forth and incoming. Such is the case also if Romney gets in, in certain areas.

From lucianne.com today;

[Zacha341]

There are some difference but I see your larger point... The silence in many areas is deafening and yet not a surprise.

Partisan loyalty is why this tendency continues.

The only difference between the policies of Obama and Dubya is that those on the left are now silent about Obama's.

[firstandten]

There are some difference but I see your larger point... The silence in many areas is deafening and yet not a surprise.

Partisan loyalty is why this tendency continues.

Not really, Obama's getting it from the far left At least those folks are consistant with not killing folks in the name of national security.

[Zacha341]

I can see that. He would be getting a level of push-back indeed. After all he is the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_priz...aureates/2009/

Not really, Obama's getting it from the far left At least those folks are consistant with not killing folks in the name of national security.

[coracle]

[Mikeg]

So the real problem is that you just don't like "The Left"?

Typical. Change the subject. Hang a negative characterization on the original poster. Another accusation dressed up as a question, like Patrick's shopworn smear of those who dare criticize Obama's perfomance: "Are you still having trouble coming to terms that there is a black guy in the White House?"

I can respond with questions, too - but these won't be personal or off-topic.

Would you agree with those who say that despite the naivety and lack of executive experience he brought to the job of the Presidency, Obama was smart enough to realize and accept the fact that some of the decisions made by his predecessor [[and which he had attacked during his campaign) were actually made in the best interests of our national security?

Do you think it is the best use of a President's time to become personally involved in the selection of individuals who will become drone strike targets?

Do you agree that there will be some negative, long-term impacts from a "take no prisoners" drone strategy?

Are you comfortable with the Obama Administration's creative accounting method that reduces the number of officially-recorded civilian casualties from drone strikes? You know, that new policy that automatically considers all males in the vicinity of a drone strike to be "militants" so that if they are also killed along with the "target" they are not considered civilians or collateral damage.

Do you have anything at all to say about the topic of this thread?

[firstandten]

Libya: Bombs away with no declaration of war, in violation of the war powers act, and without the consent of Congress.

That is a NATO production so I don't count that. Anyway, thats not his style he has said many times he rather use a scalpel than an ax. That goes for the budget or national security. He's pretty consistant about that.

Sounds like mission impossible. We should change conditions in Detroit first.

Absolutely. Changing the conditions applies if you want to get rid of drug dealers or terrorist. The billion dollar question is how do you do it?

[firstandten]

Typical. Change the subject. Hang a negative characterization on the original poster. Another accusation dressed up as a question, like Patrick's shopworn smear of those who dare criticize Obama's perfomance: "Are you still having trouble coming to terms that there is a black guy in the White House?"

I can respond with questions, too - but these won't be personal or off-topic.

Would you agree with those who say that despite the naivety and lack of executive experience he brought to the job of the Presidency, Obama was smart enough to realize and accept the fact that some of the decisions made by his predecessor [[and which he had attacked during his campaign) were actually made in the best interests of our national security?

Do you think it is the best use of a President's time to become personally involved in the selection of individuals who will become drone strike targets?

Do you agree that there will be some negative, long-term impacts from a "take no prisoners" drone strategy?

Are you comfortable with the Obama Administration's creative accounting method that reduces the number of officially-recorded civilian casualties from drone strikes? You know, that new policy that automatically considers all males in the vicinity of a drone strike to be "militants" so that if they are also killed along with the "target" they are not considered civilians or collateral damage.

Do you have anything at all to say about the topic of this thread?

Good questions ! Let me chime in on a couple. First of all President Obama did lack executive experience when he first got into office, however he is anything but naive. To think that is to seriously underestimate him. As a political opponent you do that at the risk of you being out maneuvered by him.

All presidents build on some of the policies of their predecessors regardless of the party. Bush had a lot of crappy policies in place but he had some good ones as well. Those are the ones you take, build on and sometimes don't even mess with. Thats the difference between a partisan stupid president and one with the best interest of the American people at heart.

There will be some negative impact from this policy no doubt, but he weighing that against being perceived as being weak in foreign policy and especially weak on terrorism. He has probably made the decision its better to take the hit on the former rather than the latter.

Sure its an appropriate use of his time to become involved. Just like he was involved in the other operations of the military that could have an effect on his presidency. Look he's meeting with those people anyway, probably on a daily schedule. So its not like its taking from all the other things he must do. Besides he's smart enough to know that even while praising his military leaders he knows they have an agenda that doesn't necessarily mesh cleanly with his, and its his presidency at stake.


Don't really have any thoughts on this other than what my parents used to tell me growing up. They said you may not like this but you are who you associate with. Its unfair but a fact of life.

[oladub]

firstandten: That is a NATO production so I don't count that. Anyway, thats not his style he has said many times he rather use a scalpel than an ax. That goes for the budget or national security. He's pretty consistant about that.

The NATO convention only authorizes the use of force against countries if they have attacked a NATO country. Libya did no such thing. In fact, Libya had dismantled it's nuclear program to cooperate with western countries. It is his style if he did it.

Absolutely. Changing the conditions applies if you want to get rid of drug dealers or terrorist. The billion dollar question is how do you do it?

Agreed. Ron Paul suggest that we stop meddling in other countries' affairs, occupying their counties, and killing them. I would add that we should keep potential terrorists out of this country. The drug dealers will persist as long as we tolerate or support them.

[rb336]

The NATO convention only authorizes the use of force against countries if they have attacked a NATO country. Libya did no such thing. In fact, Libya had dismantled it's nuclear program to cooperate with western countries. It is his style if he did it.

the Libyan authorization was conducted under UNSC resolution 1973. NATO is authorized under treaty, although not the Washington Treaty, to act militarily under crisis management provisions of the strategic concepts of both 1991 and 1999. This includes acting in accordance with UNSC resolutions

[oladub]

the Libyan authorization was conducted under UNSC resolution 1973. NATO is authorized under treaty, although not the Washington Treaty, to act militarily under crisis management provisions of the strategic concepts of both 1991 and 1999. This includes acting in accordance with UNSC resolutions

rb, That sounds like the bloviated and thin excuses police must have to listen to from punks in the back seat explaining why they did something stupid or harmful.

Kucinich said it was an impeachable offense. You are siding with Occidental Petroleum instead of Kucinich. The UN allowed the enforcement of a no fly zone and protection of some Libyan people. It did not require member nations, specifically the US, to do those things. If Obama wanted to bomb Libya, why didn't he immediately get the consent of Congress? I don't think from the US perspective that there was an immediate national interest. The UN resolution did not authorize regime change, arming civilians in a civil war, and other attacks not related to it's limited wording. This was Obama's call. He violated the War Powers Act which requires the permission of Congress or a declaration of war if such an event goes on more than 60 days. He violated the Constitution which only allows Congress, not the President, to declare wars. Bombing capitols and militarily overthrowing foreign governments constitute war. Kucinich is right.

The besieging of Sirte by NATO warplanes, which are dropping huge iron fragmentation bombs that will kill scores if not hundreds of innocents, mocks the justification for intervention laid out in a United Nations Security Council resolution. The U.N., when this began six months ago, authorized “all necessary measures … to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack.” We have, as always happens in war, become the monster we sought to defeat. We destroy in order to save. Libya’s ruling National Transitional Council estimates that the number of Libyans killed in the last six months, including civilians and combatants, has exceeded 50,000. Our intervention, as in Iraq and Afghanistan, has probably claimed more victims than those killed by the former regime. But this intervention, like the others, was never, despite all the high-blown rhetoric surrounding it, about protecting or saving Libyan lives. It was about the domination of oil fields by Western corporations. -Chris Hedges
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/libya_here_we_go_again_20110905/

[rb336]

yet again, not excuses, it is simply stating the facts. Kucinich is wrong. he is simply being dogmatic. Chris Hedges is a great journalist. It is telling that he never said those deaths were caused by NATO operations. He also errs due to his dogmatic viewpoint.

Let me lay out the facts:
1) the war powers act does not override international treaties, as it is not part if the constitution. In fact it may be unconstitutional itself on at least three counts.
2) treaties with both the UN and NATO are, like all treaties according to our constitution, higher law than statute, and the president has the right to act on them, regardless of the War Powers Act
3) citing ideologues is not a very good debate tactic
4) just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it's unconstitutional
5) just because you think something is legal doesn't mean you support it

I suggest you read Bobbitt's Constitutional fate


Don't know why you love Qaddafi so much

[oladub]

yet again, not excuses, it is simply stating the facts. Kucinich is wrong. he is simply being dogmatic. Chris Hedges is a great journalist. It is telling that he never said those deaths were caused by NATO operations. He also errs due to his dogmatic viewpoint.

Let me lay out the facts:
1) the war powers act does not override international treaties, as it is not part if the constitution. In fact it may be unconstitutional itself on at least three counts.
2) treaties with both the UN and NATO are, like all treaties according to our constitution, higher law than statute, and the president has the right to act on them, regardless of the War Powers Act
3) citing ideologues is not a very good debate tactic
4) just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it's unconstitutional
5) just because you think something is legal doesn't mean you support it

I suggest you read Bobbitt's Constitutional fate


Don't know why you love Qaddafi so much

So Kucininch, Chis Hedges, or for that matter Nader, Naomi Wolf, Bernie Sanders are wrong but you,Obama, and Republican neocons are right? I Get to throw Ron Paul in with the first bunch of course. Could you cite the exception in the War Powers Act saying that it doesn't apply to treaties? I agree that the War Powers Act isn't constitutional. I just brought it up as a compromise measure. Only Congress can declare war. Wars do not automatically happen because a president crazily interprets treaties to say what they do not say. Again, there was nothing in the UN provision REQUIRING the Us to do anything. Russian didn't bomb Libyans. China didn't bomb Libyans. NATO was not required by the UN to bomb Libyans. Obama chose to bomb Libyans.

I neither love nor hate Qaddafi. My habit is, however, not to kill everyone I don't love.

"Why don't we say what's on the minds of many legal experts; that the Obama administration is committing war crimes; and if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached,"

"[[Republican neocons) were considered war criminals by many people. Now, Barack Obama is committing the same crimes," "In fact, worse ones in Afghanistan. Innocents are being slaughtered, we are creating more enemies, he is violating international law." -Ralph Nader

[rb336]

Could you cite the exception in the War Powers Act saying that it doesn't apply to treaties? I agree that the War Powers Act isn't constitutional. I just brought it up as a compromise measure. Only Congress can declare war. Wars do not automatically happen because a president crazily interprets treaties to say what they do not say.

1) no statute can override a treaty. show me an exception in the constitution to that
2) during the time of the founding fathers, several military actions, including one against the French, were undertaken. None of the framers of the constitution said a word about it. Why? because not all military action rises to the level of war
3) so you are now saying Obama acted illegally because he did something violating a statute you admit is illegal?
4) there are things in the NATO agreements that require us to assist our NATO allies in actions they take in support of UNSC decisions, and the no fly zone was first [[and primarily) enforced by the French air force with assistance from England

Not one of the people you mention is a constitutional scholar, every one of them is driven by ideology. Once again, read that book.

[oladub]

1) no statute can override a treaty. show me an exception in the constitution to that
2) during the time of the founding fathers, several military actions, including one against the French, were undertaken. None of the framers of the constitution said a word about it. Why? because not all military action rises to the level of war
3) so you are now saying Obama acted illegally because he did something violating a statute you admit is illegal?
4) there are things in the NATO agreements that require us to assist our NATO allies in actions they take in support of UNSC decisions, and the no fly zone was first [[and primarily) enforced by the French air force with assistance from England

Not one of the people you mention is a constitutional scholar, every one of them is driven by ideology. Once again, read that book.

No treaty can be enacted that overrides the Constitution. In other words, if the Constitution requires that only Congress can declare wars, e.g. bombing foreign capitols and militarily overthrowing their governments, then treaties cannot be entered into that contradict the Constitution. Remember, even Roosevelt came before Congress to ask for a declaration of war after Japan attacked us. Libya didn't attack anyone. Please provide the exact wording of the UN 'treaty" requiring President Obama to bomb Libya and overthrow their government. Or the NATO amendments to the NATO articles forbidding action against nations unless they had first attacked a NATO country. You might as well throw out the Constitution if Obama can get the UN to pass resolutions promoting his agenda. In this case, however, there never was a mandate, Obama broadly interpreted a resolution and chose to attack Libya without the consent of Congress; all reasons he should be voted out of office if not impeached.

I am saying that the War Powers Act, which fall short of Constitutional requirements that Congress declare war, was also violated. This was a half way measure and Obama failed to even observe it.
Article IV

[[NATO) Treaty of Economic, Social and Cultural Collaboration and Collective Self-Defence

If any of the High Contracting Parties should be the object of an armed attack in Europe, the other High Contracting Parties will, in accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, afford the Party so attacked all the military and other aid and assistance in their power.It doesn't say anything about meddling in civil wars or arbitrarily overthrowing unlikeable governments. So which European NATO country was attacked by Libya justifying NATO to defend it? Or does the NATO treaty have some sort of commerce clause or general welfare clause equivalent that can justify doing anything too?

[rb336]

give me a break. pick and choose, but leave out the parts that don't fall into your terribly narrow level of understanding of both the Constitution AND the numerous NATO treaties. Odd that you have those narrow understandings, yet have the broadest possible definition of war

let's see how the treaty works:
1) Congress ratifies the treaty, which includes provisions for military action
2) The UN authorizes enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya
3) Under the Strategic Concepts of 1991 and 1999 [[also ratified by congress), NATO allies act in accordance with the UN authorization
4) France and England ask the US for assistance
5) President Obama, as commander in Chief, provides aircraft, drones and personnel to assist

The congress DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE WHEN AND HOW OUR MILITARY IS USED. That is the sole authority of the President. Try to find a constitutional scholar who says differently. Congress have the right to declare war and to fund the military AND Congress VOTED TO FUND THE OPERATIONS IN LIBYA

QED