I think Obama is lost

He seems to desperately trying to become a member of the political elite. It was a mistake for him to run for President and take part in all that theater. Iit a  mistake what he is doing now.  Nothing new, though.

by Mark Sashine (51 articles, 19 quicklinks, 244 diaries, 3454 comments) on Wednesday, August 8, 2007 at 9:01:01 AM
 

Obama's statement

I disagree.  In point of fact, I really thought that was the American position for years, that we would go after OBL wherever he might be if we were sure he was there.  And not just under Bush, under Clinton also.  But our supportive services (yeah, I know) such as CIA, Armed Services, etc, would not pull the trigger.  That was  under Clinton.  Think of all the lives and treasure that action would have saved.  And don't forget that a vast majority of Americans were in favor of INVADING Afghanistan because that's where OBL was.  I personally felt we should have used our Rangers or SFs to take him down, arrest him and try him.  If we had, he would now be keeping the blind sheik and Ramzi Joseph company in the Federal Prison system.   I wish to h*ll George Bush had been that smart.  Even so, most Americans apparently still feel that the invasion of Afghanistan was a righteous thing.  Maybe not a smart thing but righteous.  So what exactly is your position?  You are against getting OBL, you have reservations about how we should get him, you are against ANY bombing, you are only against bombing Pakistan, you don't really care, you just don't want to know how your candidate feels about it?

So tell me, why we have Special Forces, Seals, etc again?  What do we use them for, aside from clandestinly blowing up mosques and selling weapons to people we don't, can't publicly acknowedge?  And do you seriously mean to tell me that if we knew where OBL or Sawahiri were, you would advocate that we ask the leader of that country to turn him over, especially a Muslim country?  Especially  a country who's leader seems to be having a hard time controlling the area where OBL is?  And who has a high number of his military sympathetic to OBL?

You know, the fact that you support a different candidate for Prez doesn't mean you have to immediately discount any statement or position of an opposing candidate.  What is your position?  Do you really think that the candidates position on such an issue should be private?  What about the use of a nuke?  Do you think that is a private matter also and not to be openly discussed?   Then what the heck are the debates for?   Tell me, how do you decide who you will vote for?  Frankly, I don't give a dam about a candidates clothes or hair cuts, but I sure want to know how that candidate intends to respond in certain situations.  And I want more than fuzzy implications.  Or "I don't respond to hypotheticals."  While it might be justified with some posed "hypotheticals", a better response would be to say you don't intend such a "hypothetical" arise, through better and smarter use of intelligence (pun intended) and diplomacy.

Frankly, I don't really know how I'm going to vote in my primary.  I want some information.  And I want it straight from the candidate, not from a lot of Media spin.  I WANT to know the candidates view on nuclear warfare!  It SHOULD be off the table!  It is NOT acceptable!  Don't tell me it's a bargaining chip against Iran, from Iran's point of view, it's exactly why they are so determined to have a bomb!  Once they've got a bomb, they're safe from attack from us.  And so far as Pakistan is concerned, I really think Musharif would welcome the taking out of OBL and other Al Quaida leaders if it were done quietly and discretely.  None of it would have to be public.  But, regardless of what I think, I want to know what the CANDIDATE thinks.  Don't you?

by bmobley (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 30 comments) on Wednesday, August 8, 2007 at 12:29:50 PM
 

American point of view

I'm sure bombing this or that fugitive wherever he may be was the American point of view, but that doesn't make it legal.  Either we're a government of laws or we're not.  Applications of armed force in foreign countries might be effective (so far, not so much), but they violate our laws.  If there's no law for the  government, there's no law for the governed either.   A sizeable minority still believes in the rule of law, and, so far, every application of armed force and every other abuse of executive power has vindicated their point of view.

by Steve Fournier (32 articles, 17 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 43 comments) on Wednesday, August 8, 2007 at 12:57:53 PM
 

Rule of Law

Well gee, I wasn't advocating anarchy.  Still, I take your well phrased and relatively mild rebuke in the spirit with which it was given.

So tell me, if you were President, and you had "actionable intelligence" on the where-abouts of OBL, say in Pakistan, what would you do?  I will assume for the sake of argument that you would request Musharraf to arrest him and give him into our custody.  That's fine with me.  Apparently that happened not too long ago with a meeting of top AQ leadership and we notified Musharraf of our intentions and he essentially forbade it because of his precarious political situation.  So we scratched the operation.  Mind you, he didn't offer to send his military in, he said I can't trust my military to do it and you mustn't do it either.  So what's a fellow to do in such a circumstance?  What would you do?  I believe in law and order, and even international law.  That's why I said bring him back to the US, and try him in a court of law.  I remember many years ago, maybe in the 50s when Israel found Eichman and because Argentina would not cooperate, they went in and got him.  There were a few ruffled feathers but by and large the world was rooting for Israel.  That may have been one of the last decade I was rooting for Israel but thats another issue.  If he isn't where you're army is, what do you do?  Do you really want to declare war on Pakistan?  Seems to me the results of that would be pretty much what they were when we invaded Afghanistan.  He would be long gone before we got there.  So, what do you think we should do?  Just let it go?  How many deaths have occured as a direct result of the two wars we are now engaged in?  You also did not address my point about the use of SFs, etc.  Is the judicious use of those forces also unacceptable?  My recollection of what OBama said was that he would take them out.  It was in response to a question regarding bombing the he said he would do that.  But no nukes.  Regardless, what would you do?

by bmobley (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 30 comments) on Wednesday, August 8, 2007 at 4:28:54 PM
 

apprehending criminals in foreign countries

The problem (as some see it) is that we're restrained by our laws.  They definitely are government-restraining laws, and they're meant to be.  When we allow our government to lob rockets into houses in Afghanistan, we're inviting the same government to lob rockets into houses in New York or Waco, which is no less illegal.  They might not do it, but they might. 

What we used to do was to apply diplomacy to negotiate the capture of people in other countries who committed crimes here.  We used to promise them a fair trial under our very protective laws, and this could sometimes be an incentive for a foreign government to find them and hand them over.  Usually, the foreign officials are as happy to get rid of these people as we are to get hold of them.  Often, we don't get hold of them at all, but that's the price of liberty.  

Think of FDR, sitting in the White House, itching to attack the Axis and disabled because of our laws.  He had to wait for an attack.  It was inconvenient, but it preserved the rule of law.  He couldn't very well follow Hitler's lead and declare all the inconvenient laws null and void.  That's what the Allies were fighting against.  The last 40 years of presidents have been less observant, and we're paying the price for that today.

Capturing criminals has always involved compliance with disabling laws.  That's the USA.  The founders didn't trust government, and so they checked it at every turn.  It's impractical in some ways, but it's worked for us.  It's been good for the quality of our lives and it's been good for business, too.  It would be difificult to argue that our current repressive approach to law enforcement and foreign affairs has improved our lives in any way whatsoever. 

People are starting to regret that we strayed so far from  principle, and some are demanding an accounting.    The policy we follow now can never produce justice.  It doesn't even work to apprehend the criminals, and it undermines the rule of law, which has been behind our success.  Obama should repudiate these policies, and tell why he's doing it.  As a lawyer.  As a senator.  As a democrat.  And if he doesn't, we should repudiate him as a would-be despot. 

One lawyer's opinion.

by Steve Fournier (32 articles, 17 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 43 comments) on Wednesday, August 8, 2007 at 6:41:51 PM