|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 2, 2014 5:58:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 2, 2014 15:00:37 GMT
I'd argue that Retired Brig. Gen. Robert Lovell's opinion reflects why he was never promoted to Maj. General because it is myopic. In fact the US did respond and it doubled the number of deaths at Benghazi as opposed to reducing them if we review the facts.
Let's address the facts:
First and foremost the security for a "consulate" is with the host country. Security for the compound was vested in the Libyan security forces and they did an excellent job. Upon notification of the breach of security at the US compound they responded quickly and removed all of the US personnel they could locate and took them to the Libyan security compound where they were safe until they could be evacuated in the morning. None of the personnel at the US compound died as a direct result of the terrorist attack,
When the attack began Diplomatic Security Service Special Agent Scott Strickland secured Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith in a "safe room" at the compound. When the terrorists set fire to the compount it was decided to leave the safe room because of smoke and Strickland did that but Stevens and Smith failed to follow. Strickland returned several times but could not locate either Steven or Smith, Ambassador Steven and Sean Smith died of smoke inhalation after the attack because the "safe room" was secret and the Libyan security forces didn's locate it and take Stevens to safety with the rest of the US personnel. Strickland survived because he let the safe room and Srevens and Smith would have survived had they done the same. The only apparent problem was that the "safe room" didn't properly filter the air and the Libyan security forces were unaware of it's existance.
Once the Libyan security forces removed all of the US personnel they could locate to their compound they were all safe until they were evacuated the following morning. Not a single one of those at the compound, except Stevens and Smith that Libyans were unable to locate, died from the attack.
The US did respond to the attack by sending security forces from Tripoli that were completely unnecessary because the Libyan security forces had everything under control. As noted the Americans were safely in the Libyan security compound that was never breached and all of them were safe and were safely evacuated the following morning. Because the US did deploy unnecessary forces from Tripoli two of these security forces eventually died from the deployment. They would not have died had they not been deployed and placed in "harms way" and they did absolutely nothing when it came to protecting the Americans that had been at the compound in Benghazi.
So basically Brig Gen Lovelll is a military idiot. The Libyan security forces had everything under control. Abassador Stevens and Sean Smith died needlessly at the compound because of "CIA security" procedures and by not following Strickland when the "safe room" filled with smoke, and the deployment of US forces to Benghazi that actually did occur simply doubled the death toll at Benghazi without accomplishing anything.
Of note the only US military assets that could have been deployed in response were US Air Force fighters in Italy and it would have taken many hours to set up the air-refueling and coordination. It was completely impractical to call on these forces and they wouldn't have had any "targets" even had they been deployed because of the flight time from their base to Benghazi. There weren't even any "armed" drones anywhere near Benghazi. The only forces that could respond were in Tripoli, they were deployed, and all that accompished was doubling the US death toll.
Of course everyone knew the attacks at Benghazi were a hostile action. When being attacked every one knows is sure as hell isn't a friendly action. No one ever implied that the attacks were anything but a hostile action.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 2, 2014 19:59:59 GMT
I'd argue that Retired Brig. Gen. Robert Lovell's opinion reflects why he was never promoted to Maj. General because it is myopic. In fact the US did respond and it doubled the number of deaths at Benghazi as opposed to reducing them if we review the facts.
Let's address the facts:
First and foremost the security for a "consulate" is with the host country. Security for the compound was vested in the Libyan security forces and they did an excellent job. Upon notification of the breach of security at the US compound they responded quickly and removed all of the US personnel they could locate and took them to the Libyan security compound where they were safe until they could be evacuated in the morning. None of the personnel at the US compound died as a direct result of the terrorist attack,
When the attack began Diplomatic Security Service Special Agent Scott Strickland secured Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith in a "safe room" at the compound. When the terrorists set fire to the compount it was decided to leave the safe room because of smoke and Strickland did that but Stevens and Smith failed to follow. Strickland returned several times but could not locate either Steven or Smith, Ambassador Steven and Sean Smith died of smoke inhalation after the attack because the "safe room" was secret and the Libyan security forces didn's locate it and take Stevens to safety with the rest of the US personnel. Strickland survived because he let the safe room and Srevens and Smith would have survived had they done the same. The only apparent problem was that the "safe room" didn't properly filter the air and the Libyan security forces were unaware of it's existance.
Once the Libyan security forces removed all of the US personnel they could locate to their compound they were all safe until they were evacuated the following morning. Not a single one of those at the compound, except Stevens and Smith that Libyans were unable to locate, died from the attack.
The US did respond to the attack by sending security forces from Tripoli that were completely unnecessary because the Libyan security forces had everything under control. As noted the Americans were safely in the Libyan security compound that was never breached and all of them were safe and were safely evacuated the following morning. Because the US did deploy unnecessary forces from Tripoli two of these security forces eventually died from the deployment. They would not have died had they not been deployed and placed in "harms way" and they did absolutely nothing when it came to protecting the Americans that had been at the compound in Benghazi.
So basically Brig Gen Lovelll is a military idiot. The Libyan security forces had everything under control. Abassador Stevens and Sean Smith died needlessly at the compound because of "CIA security" procedures and by not following Strickland when the "safe room" filled with smoke, and the deployment of US forces to Benghazi that actually did occur simply doubled the death toll at Benghazi without accomplishing anything.
Of note the only US military assets that could have been deployed in response were US Air Force fighters in Italy and it would have taken many hours to set up the air-refueling and coordination. It was completely impractical to call on these forces and they wouldn't have had any "targets" even had they been deployed because of the flight time from their base to Benghazi. There weren't even any "armed" drones anywhere near Benghazi. The only forces that could respond were in Tripoli, they were deployed, and all that accompished was doubling the US death toll.
Of course everyone knew the attacks at Benghazi were a hostile action. When being attacked every one knows is sure as hell isn't a friendly action. No one ever implied that the attacks were anything but a hostile action.
No, no one "ever implied" that this attack on the US consulate in Benghazi was "anything but a hostile action." But Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, et al., kept spinning--and spinning, and spinning some more--that it was all the result of an "Internet video" that was uncongenial to Muslims; when this, in fact, had just about as much to do with precipitating this attack as, say, a speeding violation in Yonkers did. And to be ordered to stand down, as was the case with the US military, was highly inappropriate--to say the least. Even if it had not been able to arrive in time to save these men, it could have tried; and it could also have taken strong action against this gang of al-Qaeda thugs, in order to show that the US will go to any length--yes, to any length, without exception--to punish those who would act in such a manner. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 3, 2014 9:24:53 GMT
No, no one "ever implied" that this attack on the US consulate in Benghazi was "anything but a hostile action." But Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, et al., kept spinning--and spinning, and spinning some more--that it was all the result of an "Internet video" that was uncongenial to Muslims; when this, in fact, had just about as much to do with precipitating this attack as, say, a speeding violation in Yonkers did. And to be ordered to stand down, as was the case with the US military, was highly inappropriate--to say the least. Even if it had not been able to arrive in time to save these men, it could have tried; and it could also have taken strong action against this gang of al-Qaeda thugs, in order to show that the US will go to any length--yes, to any length, without exception--to punish those who would act in such a manner.
It was the Pentagon, Brig Gen Lovell's superiors, that made the decision that there was no appropriate military response to Benghazi because the US military assets were not within a deployable range to do anything in a timely manner nor was there even a "target" for them to attack. That was not a State Department or White House decision. It was a military decision and it was the correct decision.
Here's the deal. There were no "failures" by the State Department or White House prior to the Benghazi attacks or in response to them. The "military" option was never viable which is why it wasn't used. I personally watched President Obama's appearance in the Rose Garden the morning following the attack and there was no doubt in my mind that it was attacked by terrorists. I don't believe any Americans thought otherwise. Finally, the "Talking Points" were still basically a CIA construct to cover their ass because Benghazi was a CIA outpost and not a diplomatic mission.
The bottom line is, Who Cares?
The Republicans in the House have been trying to fabricate a scandal and the American People are bored with it. Why didn't they spend last year working on immigration reform, significant tax reform, or even developing an alternative to Obamacare? You know, something that might have been oof actual importance to the American People. The American People basically don't give a rats ass about Benghazi.
PS - One of the US major failures is that we Go Too Far in addressing international terrorism. Between 150,000 and perhaps over 1 million innocent people have died because of how far the US has been "willing to go" in fighting terrorism. One of the primary reasons there are so many "terrorists" is because the US is responsible for so many innocent people dying. Ever consider that fact?
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 3, 2014 19:13:38 GMT
No, no one "ever implied" that this attack on the US consulate in Benghazi was "anything but a hostile action." But Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, et al., kept spinning--and spinning, and spinning some more--that it was all the result of an "Internet video" that was uncongenial to Muslims; when this, in fact, had just about as much to do with precipitating this attack as, say, a speeding violation in Yonkers did. And to be ordered to stand down, as was the case with the US military, was highly inappropriate--to say the least. Even if it had not been able to arrive in time to save these men, it could have tried; and it could also have taken strong action against this gang of al-Qaeda thugs, in order to show that the US will go to any length--yes, to any length, without exception--to punish those who would act in such a manner.
It was the Pentagon, Brig Gen Lovell's superiors, that made the decision that there was no appropriate military response to Benghazi because the US military assets were not within a deployable range to do anything in a timely manner nor was there even a "target" for them to attack. That was not a State Department or White House decision. It was a military decision and it was the correct decision.
Here's the deal. There were no "failures" by the State Department or White House prior to the Benghazi attacks or in response to them. The "military" option was never viable which is why it wasn't used. I personally watched President Obama's appearance in the Rose Garden the morning following the attack and there was no doubt in my mind that it was attacked by terrorists. I don't believe any Americans thought otherwise. Finally, the "Talking Points" were still basically a CIA construct to cover their ass because Benghazi was a CIA outpost and not a diplomatic mission.
The bottom line is, Who Cares?
The Republicans in the House have been trying to fabricate a scandal and the American People are bored with it. Why didn't they spend last year working on immigration reform, significant tax reform, or even developing an alternative to Obamacare? You know, something that might have been oof actual importance to the American People. The American People basically don't give a rats ass about Benghazi.
PS - One of the US major failures is that we Go Too Far in addressing international terrorism. Between 150,000 and perhaps over 1 million innocent people have died because of how far the US has been "willing to go" in fighting terrorism. One of the primary reasons there are so many "terrorists" is because the US is responsible for so many innocent people dying. Ever consider that fact?
The cavalier response, "Who Cares?," is reminiscent of Hillary Clinton's defiant words on January 23, 2013, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: "At this point, what difference does it make!" Well, it really does make a great deal of difference to me when my own government lies to the American people--and then orchestrates a major coverup. (Think: Watergate.) When Washington first learned of the attack, it did not have any clue just how long the attack might last; therefore, no one might possibly have known if it would be possible to arrive in time to prevent all those deaths. In any case. our non-response was a severe violation of the fundamental military doctrine to never leave anyone behind.
As to the matter of how many new terrorists have been created by America's willingness to fight terrorism, this is the typical response of the left: Why, America just ought not attempt--very hard, anyway--to fight terrorism, lest our efforts might boomerang. (It is a very good thing that our military, in the 1940s, did not think that way, or we could have just as well given carte blanche to Adolf Hitler.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 4, 2014 10:00:05 GMT
The cavalier response, "Who Cares?," is reminiscent of Hillary Clinton's defiant words on January 23, 2013, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: "At this point, what difference does it make!" Well, it really does make a great deal of difference to me when my own government lies to the American people--and then orchestrates a major coverup. (Think: Watergate.) When Washington first learned of the attack, it did not have any clue just how long the attack might last; therefore, no one might possibly have known if it would be possible to arrive in time to prevent all those deaths. In any case. our non-response was a severe violation of the fundamental military doctrine to never leave anyone behind.
As to the matter of how many new terrorists have been created by America's willingness to fight terrorism, this is the typical response of the left: Why, America just ought not attempt--very hard, anyway--to fight terrorism, lest our efforts might boomerang. (It is a very good thing that our military, in the 1940s, did not think that way, or we could have just as well given carte blanche to Adolf Hitler.)
The CIA and our government routinely "lies" to the American People citing "national security" and that is not unique to the Obama Adminstration. Benghazi was a CIA outpost using the "cover" of being a diplomatic outpost that provided no diplomatic services. If we want to condemn the CIA and our government for routinely lying to us that's one thing but to try and make it a partisan issue is politically dishonest.
Organizing a US military response realistically would have taken days, not hours, to put together. For the US military to respond it needed a clear "target" but that didn't exist in Benghazi. Senior Pentagon officials that were in charge all stated this clearly and directly to Congress.
The Libyan security forces, that were located about a kilometer away as I recall, did respond immidiately and effectively and they were the correct forces to address the attack. There was no need for US military interventionism that wouldn't have even arrived on the scene until many hours after the evacuation of the Americans from Benghazi the morning after the attack.
I don't believe we can call politicians like Ron Paul, that has on numerous occasions stated that our military interventionism "boomerangs" by creating the terrorist threat against us, a liberal. I believe that his son. Sen Rand Paul, has also stated this opinion. You will find my opinion on the problem of terrorism on the following link and it has not changed since 1998 when I wrote this OpEd for my local newspaper.
worldpf.com/thread/194/wisdom-weapons-needed-terrorism-1998
We have obviously not followed my policy and the threat of terrorism has grown worse since then, not less, so obviously what we're doing isn't working. What was it Einstein said? "Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 4, 2014 19:21:52 GMT
The cavalier response, "Who Cares?," is reminiscent of Hillary Clinton's defiant words on January 23, 2013, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: "At this point, what difference does it make!" Well, it really does make a great deal of difference to me when my own government lies to the American people--and then orchestrates a major coverup. (Think: Watergate.) When Washington first learned of the attack, it did not have any clue just how long the attack might last; therefore, no one might possibly have known if it would be possible to arrive in time to prevent all those deaths. In any case. our non-response was a severe violation of the fundamental military doctrine to never leave anyone behind.
As to the matter of how many new terrorists have been created by America's willingness to fight terrorism, this is the typical response of the left: Why, America just ought not attempt--very hard, anyway--to fight terrorism, lest our efforts might boomerang. (It is a very good thing that our military, in the 1940s, did not think that way, or we could have just as well given carte blanche to Adolf Hitler.)
The CIA and our government routinely "lies" to the American People citing "national security" and that is not unique to the Obama Adminstration. Benghazi was a CIA outpost using the "cover" of being a diplomatic outpost that provided no diplomatic services. If we want to condemn the CIA and our government for routinely lying to us that's one thing but to try and make it a partisan issue is politically dishonest.
Organizing a US military response realistically would have taken days, not hours, to put together. For the US military to respond it needed a clear "target" but that didn't exist in Benghazi. Senior Pentagon officials that were in charge all stated this clearly and directly to Congress.
The Libyan security forces, that were located about a kilometer away as I recall, did respond immidiately and effectively and they were the correct forces to address the attack. There was no need for US military interventionism that wouldn't have even arrived on the scene until many hours after the evacuation of the Americans from Benghazi the morning after the attack.
I don't believe we can call politicians like Ron Paul, that has on numerous occasions stated that our military interventionism "boomerangs" by creating the terrorist threat against us, a liberal. I believe that his son. Sen Rand Paul, has also stated this opinion. You will find my opinion on the problem of terrorism on the following link and it has not changed since 1998 when I wrote this OpEd for my local newspaper.
worldpf.com/thread/194/wisdom-weapons-needed-terrorism-1998
We have obviously not followed my policy and the threat of terrorism has grown worse since then, not less, so obviously what we're doing isn't working. What was it Einstein said? "Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
No, Ron Paul is not "a liberal." Neither is his son, Rand Paul. Both, however, are libertarians; amd on matters of foreign policy, liberals and libertarians tend to see matters very much alike. It would appear that your view of what America's response to terrorism should be is rooted in a visceral hatred of the CIA (which you appear to blame for just about everything, with the possible exception of Superstorm Sandy), coupled with the belief that we must do national penance for our (perceived) sins. (Why, we must grovel a bit--"admit past mistakes"--and "stop [the] incessant meddling" in other countries' "internal affairs." Lastly, you appear to believe that Middle Easterners--who are steeped in a culture very different from our own--would be quite congenial to Western values, if only we would set those forth, while we overlook the murderous sprees of some. (Americans who commit mass murder--as with James Eagan Holmes, who shot up the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, on July 20, 2012--are quickly brought to justice. But some people seem to think that mass murderers from the Middle East--i.e. terrorists--ought to be held to a much less severe standard, lest we should irritate them, and just create more terrorosts.) By the way, lying to the American people may not be "unique" to the Obama administration; but the last time it was of this magnitude, it was known as the Watergate scandal (as regarding which, no one even died--unlike the Benghazi scandal). And Richard Nixon got his just comeuppance for it. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 5, 2014 11:21:28 GMT
No, Ron Paul is not "a liberal." Neither is his son, Rand Paul. Both, however, are libertarians; amd on matters of foreign policy, liberals and libertarians tend to see matters very much alike. It would appear that your view of what America's response to terrorism should be is rooted in a visceral hatred of the CIA (which you appear to blame for just about everything, with the possible exception of Superstorm Sandy), coupled with the belief that we must do national penance for our (perceived) sins. (Why, we must grovel a bit--"admit past mistakes"--and "stop [the] incessant meddling" in other countries' "internal affairs." Lastly, you appear to believe that Middle Easterners--who are steeped in a culture very different from our own--would be quite congenial to Western values, if only we would set those forth, while we overlook the murderous sprees of some. (Americans who commit mass murder--as with James Eagan Holmes, who shot up the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, on July 20, 2012--are quickly brought to justice. But some people seem to think that mass murderers from the Middle East--i.e. terrorists--ought to be held to a much less severe standard, lest we should irritate them, and just create more terrorosts.) By the way, lying to the American people may not be "unique" to the Obama administration; but the last time it was of this magnitude, it was known as the Watergate scandal (as regarding which, no one even died--unlike the Benghazi scandal). And Richard Nixon got his just comeuppance for it.
While portrayed by the media as being "libertarians" neither Ron Paul or Rand Paul are libertarians. Both are ultra-conservative Republicans that do have a some "libertarian" political beliefs but then so do most politicians. The problem I find with this is because the media portrays them as libertarians many people that support the "Pauls" believe that they are also libertarians but they're not.
About the CIA.... let's see... it's an organization that has sponsored terrorism..... committed acts of torture..... violated the sovereignty of other nations.... ignores the US Constitution.... and wages paramilitary wars around the world.... lies to the American People.... and routinely violates International Laws and Treaties that the US is a party to.... and commits murder. It has been out of control for decades and is an example of what the United States shoudldn't be doing in our international affairs. It is supposed to be an agency collecting "foreign intelligence" but has long since stopped limiting itself to it's designated purpose.
The poster child of international terrorism was Osama bin Ladin and, while I don't have the link, he once stated that if the United States followed the ideals upon which it was founded it would never have become an enemy of al Qaeda. In his statements rationalizing terrorist attacks he often listed specific reasons and all of them related to actions by the United States where our government violated the ideology upon which America was founded. The greatest failure of the US government has been the foreign policy of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" where we've supported tyrannical regimes around the world and continue to do that today. The greatest single "American" political value is the opposition to tyranny and yet we both support tyrannical regimes and commit acts of tyranny in other countries.
It isn't about admitting past mistakes or doing penance but instead for us to stop committing those mistakes in the future.
The analogy between Benghazi and Watergate is a straw man and you know it. No one died because of the CIA talking points after the Benghazi attacks that were just another attempt to cover-up CIA covert activities in another country. There were no "policy" failures prior to the Benghazi attacks by the White House or State Department unless we want to cite the CIA even being in Benghazi as a policy failure. No criminal acts were committed by the White House or State Department.
Yes, we should pursue terrorists that attack us but we should do so based upon international laws and customs in accordance with our treaty agreements. Sadly we don't do that.
For example after 9/11 the US wanted to bring Osama bin Ladin to justice but it could only have been based upon the indictment for the 1998 African Embassy bombings because we didn't have any evidence tying him to the 9/11 attacks in the weeks following attack. We did not have a mutual extradition treaty with Afghanistan so it required an ad hoc bilateral agreement between Afghanistan and the US. The Taliban government in Afghanistan proposed an agreement under which they would arrest bin Ladin and turn him over to an unbiased international court for prosecution to ensure against the US conducting a kangaroo court to convict him. The Bush adminstration rejected the proposal to bring bin Ladin to justice before an unbiased court of law and refused to negotiate a bilateral agreement with the Taliban government in instead violated our Treaty agreements and International Law by invading Afghanistan.
Today President Obama is committing "extra-judicial" executions and you now what "extra-judicial" means I assume. It means "outside the lawful authority" of the government. Any killing of a person outside of the "lawful authority" of the government is MURDER under the laws of the United States and is a direct violation of the 5th Amendment. If you want to address the actions of the President that violate the US Constitution and the laws of the United States then start demanding that President Obama be impeached for murder. I've done that on other forums. At the same time we should also be calling on the prosecution of forment President Bush by the Intternational Court of Criminal Justice for War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity because of his authorizations for acts, such as torture and violation of the Geneva Conventions, while he was in office.
Benghazi isn't an issue. Following the US Constitution, abiding by US law, complying with our international treaty obligations that we volunrarily agreed to, and promoting the political ideology upon which America was founded in our actions is the real issue.
I believe that the political ideology of the United States is superior to all other nations but it can't be just works. We must live by it and if it truly is superior then the people of other nations will respect it and attempt to emulate it in the future. If we are to be truly a "World Leader" we must lead by example and we're not doing that.
As for Benghazi we knew everything worth knowing two years ago. No died because of the misleading statements (that really weren't all that misleading) after the attack, there were no policy failures, there was no reason for the US military to become involved during the attacks that only lasted about two hours combined, and not every criminal is captured and brought to justice. It's long since time to move on because the House Republicans have been ignoring real problems for America while playing politics on a chapter of American history that is closed.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 5, 2014 20:56:38 GMT
No, Ron Paul is not "a liberal." Neither is his son, Rand Paul. Both, however, are libertarians; amd on matters of foreign policy, liberals and libertarians tend to see matters very much alike. It would appear that your view of what America's response to terrorism should be is rooted in a visceral hatred of the CIA (which you appear to blame for just about everything, with the possible exception of Superstorm Sandy), coupled with the belief that we must do national penance for our (perceived) sins. (Why, we must grovel a bit--"admit past mistakes"--and "stop [the] incessant meddling" in other countries' "internal affairs." Lastly, you appear to believe that Middle Easterners--who are steeped in a culture very different from our own--would be quite congenial to Western values, if only we would set those forth, while we overlook the murderous sprees of some. (Americans who commit mass murder--as with James Eagan Holmes, who shot up the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, on July 20, 2012--are quickly brought to justice. But some people seem to think that mass murderers from the Middle East--i.e. terrorists--ought to be held to a much less severe standard, lest we should irritate them, and just create more terrorosts.) By the way, lying to the American people may not be "unique" to the Obama administration; but the last time it was of this magnitude, it was known as the Watergate scandal (as regarding which, no one even died--unlike the Benghazi scandal). And Richard Nixon got his just comeuppance for it.
While portrayed by the media as being "libertarians" neither Ron Paul or Rand Paul are libertarians. Both are ultra-conservative Republicans that do have a some "libertarian" political beliefs but then so do most politicians. The problem I find with this is because the media portrays them as libertarians many people that support the "Pauls" believe that they are also libertarians but they're not.
About the CIA.... let's see... it's an organization that has sponsored terrorism..... committed acts of torture..... violated the sovereignty of other nations.... ignores the US Constitution.... and wages paramilitary wars around the world.... lies to the American People.... and routinely violates International Laws and Treaties that the US is a party to.... and commits murder. It has been out of control for decades and is an example of what the United States shoudldn't be doing in our international affairs. It is supposed to be an agency collecting "foreign intelligence" but has long since stopped limiting itself to it's designated purpose.
The poster child of international terrorism was Osama bin Ladin and, while I don't have the link, he once stated that if the United States followed the ideals upon which it was founded it would never have become an enemy of al Qaeda. In his statements rationalizing terrorist attacks he often listed specific reasons and all of them related to actions by the United States where our government violated the ideology upon which America was founded. The greatest failure of the US government has been the foreign policy of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" where we've supported tyrannical regimes around the world and continue to do that today. The greatest single "American" political value is the opposition to tyranny and yet we both support tyrannical regimes and commit acts of tyranny in other countries.
It isn't about admitting past mistakes or doing penance but instead for us to stop committing those mistakes in the future.
The analogy between Benghazi and Watergate is a straw man and you know it. No one died because of the CIA talking points after the Benghazi attacks that were just another attempt to cover-up CIA covert activities in another country. There were no "policy" failures prior to the Benghazi attacks by the White House or State Department unless we want to cite the CIA even being in Benghazi as a policy failure. No criminal acts were committed by the White House or State Department.
Yes, we should pursue terrorists that attack us but we should do so based upon international laws and customs in accordance with our treaty agreements. Sadly we don't do that.
For example after 9/11 the US wanted to bring Osama bin Ladin to justice but it could only have been based upon the indictment for the 1998 African Embassy bombings because we didn't have any evidence tying him to the 9/11 attacks in the weeks following attack. We did not have a mutual extradition treaty with Afghanistan so it required an ad hoc bilateral agreement between Afghanistan and the US. The Taliban government in Afghanistan proposed an agreement under which they would arrest bin Ladin and turn him over to an unbiased international court for prosecution to ensure against the US conducting a kangaroo court to convict him. The Bush adminstration rejected the proposal to bring bin Ladin to justice before an unbiased court of law and refused to negotiate a bilateral agreement with the Taliban government in instead violated our Treaty agreements and International Law by invading Afghanistan.
Today President Obama is committing "extra-judicial" executions and you now what "extra-judicial" means I assume. It means "outside the lawful authority" of the government. Any killing of a person outside of the "lawful authority" of the government is MURDER under the laws of the United States and is a direct violation of the 5th Amendment. If you want to address the actions of the President that violate the US Constitution and the laws of the United States then start demanding that President Obama be impeached for murder. I've done that on other forums. At the same time we should also be calling on the prosecution of forment President Bush by the Intternational Court of Criminal Justice for War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity because of his authorizations for acts, such as torture and violation of the Geneva Conventions, while he was in office.
Benghazi isn't an issue. Following the US Constitution, abiding by US law, complying with our international treaty obligations that we volunrarily agreed to, and promoting the political ideology upon which America was founded in our actions is the real issue.
I believe that the political ideology of the United States is superior to all other nations but it can't be just works. We must live by it and if it truly is superior then the people of other nations will respect it and attempt to emulate it in the future. If we are to be truly a "World Leader" we must lead by example and we're not doing that.
As for Benghazi we knew everything worth knowing two years ago. No died because of the misleading statements (that really weren't all that misleading) after the attack, there were no policy failures, there was no reason for the US military to become involved during the attacks that only lasted about two hours combined, and not every criminal is captured and brought to justice. It's long since time to move on because the House Republicans have been ignoring real problems for America while playing politics on a chapter of American history that is closed.
I really cannot believe that you do not suppose that either Ron Paul or his son, Rand, are libertarians; but that they are just "portrayed" that way "by the media" (all the way from the left-leaning MSNBC to the center-right FNC). Your litany of (alleged) sins by the CIA--which was emasculated by the Church Committee in the 1970s (never mind the findings of the Pike Committee, from about the same period)--sounds very much like the laundry list of leftist talking points. And how might it be a "straw man" to note that the Watergate imbroglio (for which people--all the way up to, and including, the president--were justifiably held accountable) involved no greater degree of deception and lawbreaking than the Benghazi fiasco did? If it really "isn't about [America's] admitting past mistakes," it seems rather odd that this is precisely what you said it should be about, elsewhere (to which I was responding). Moreover, I do not share your fetish for "international laws." In fact, I would much prefer that the US should entirely disregard all international law, in its dealings with other countries. (And I certainly do not share your faith that "international courts" are more objective and justice-prone than American courts are; although I should add that I do not regard the late Osama bin Laden as a mere criminal, but as an illegal combatant.) I find it rather strange that I would be defending President Obama; but the suggestion that he should be impeached for "murder" (and that former President George W. Bush should be tried for murder before the ICC) is utterly appalling to me. I am still trying to figure out why you might suppose that there was nothing "all that misleading" about Susan Rice's spin--on no fewer than five Sunday morning programs, just a few days after the attack--that this unspeakably evil act was the result of some "Internet video"--a position then embraced by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. As for its being time to "move on"--with no one being held accountable for the spin and the outright lies--this is the left's usual response to any attempt to get at the truth. In fact, during the Monica Lewinsky scandal of the late '90s, it even founded the website, MoveOn.org--which is still in existence today. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 6, 2014 11:26:00 GMT
Moreover, I do not share your fetish for "international laws." In fact, I would much prefer that the US should entirely disregard all international law, in its dealings with other countries. (And I certainly do not share your faith that "international courts" are more objective and justice-prone than American courts are; although I should add that I do not regard the late Osama bin Laden as a mere criminal, but as an illegal combatant.)
First of all I didn't state that the International Court of Criminal Justice, that the United States supports and is a party to, is more objective or justice-prone than the US Courts but it is certainly less bias when it comes to cases where there is a conflict of interest related to a nation in adminstration of the law. All criminal cases should be heard by an unbiased court of law.
It is strange that you oppose "International Law" when the "Unlawful (not illegal) Combatant" status of a person is addressed by the Geneva Conventions and the (International) Laws and Customs of War. Without International Law there is no such thing as an "Unlawful Combatant" because that status is established by International Law.
I have to ask if you really do oppose the Laws of the Seas and the Laws and Customs of War that are all established by International Law?
It is also interesting that because bin Ladin was killed and not brought to justice (even an "unlawful combatant" is entitled to due process of the law) we don't know if there was actually enough evidence to convict him of any crime. The only indictment against bin Ladin was for conspiracy related to the 1998 African-Embassy bombings but "conspiracy" is an extremely hard case to prove. Based upon the US Constitution if he had been acquited of the charge of conspiracy he would be assumed innocent and would have had to be freed. An interesting question for people to consider.
I am very much opposed to those still being incarcerated at GITMO for over 10 years because of their religious and/or political beliefs where there are no criminal complaints. There is no evidence that they committed or conspired to commit acts of terrorism or that they were unlawful combatants. It reminds me too much of what happened under Stalin in Russia.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 6, 2014 12:11:47 GMT
I really cannot believe that you do not suppose that either Ron Paul or his son, Rand, are libertarians; but that they are just "portrayed" that way "by the media" (all the way from the left-leaning MSNBC to the center-right FNC).
We cannot judge a politician by what they have in common with a poltical ideology but instead we must judge them based upon their difference. I will not a few of the differences between Rand Paul's position on the issues that are in direct conflict with the Libertarian Party's position on the issues.
1. Rand Paul is a pro-life/anti-abortionist. The Libertarian Party is pro-life/pro-choice.
2. Rand Paul opposes open immigration and advocates a fence along all of the Mexican border. The Libertarian Party advocates open immigration.
3. Rand Paul seeks to reduce federal welfare spending by simply cutting the benefits. The Libertarian Party supports the transition to family, church, community based welfare assistance that would slowly reduce the necessity for federal welfare assistance. In short Rand Paul somehow believes that just cutting the benefits reduces the need for assistance while the Libertarian Party acknowledges the necessity exists but seeks to transition the burden on society onto the private sector from the public sector. (My personal opinion is that we need to reduce poverty because the burden to society doesn't change by just changing the funding from a "public" burden to a "private" burden over time - I advocate reducing the burden by reducing poverty).
4. Rand Paul is fiscally irresponsible as he has made no proposals that would balance the US Budget. Gary Johnson, the 2012 Libertarian Presidental Candidate, stated he would balance the US budget his first year in office regardless of what it took to accomplish that. Of course Johnson would have faced a hostile Congress in trying to balance the budget predominately from Republicans that don't advocate balancing the budget because it would require revenue increases and than means tax increases (that logically have to be imposed on high income earners).
5. Rand Paul supports cutting Social Securty benefits by raising the retirement age to address the future funding shortfall (ignoring the fact that while people are living longer their physical and mental ability to work and earn a living has not increased with the increase in their lifespan). The Libetarian Party supports privatization of Social Security. (I don't endorse the Libertarian proposal for how to privatize Social Security because it is "voluntary" but at least they have the right idea that it needs to be privatized.)
www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issues
www.lp.org/issues
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 6, 2014 18:23:51 GMT
House Speaker John Boehner has already called for another "committee" to investigate Benghazi even though opinion polls show that the American People are basically over it and want to move forward as opposed to looking back. I'm not a fan of continuing to waste the taxpayer dollars and Congressional time where the House should be addressing issues like tax reform to eliminate inequities and rewriting the immigrantion laws if this will be the LAST committee and if it isn't just another Republican witch hunt then let it proceed.The Democrats had threatened to simply boycott the committee but there has been a breakthrough apparently. The stumbling block now appears that Republicans might not want an unbiased investigation.
news.yahoo.com/dems-open-door-participating-benghazi-probe-134621231--politics.html
So I guess the question I'd put forward is whether the investigation should be bipartisan to eliminate any perception of it being nothing more than another Republican witch hunt?
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 7, 2014 1:35:25 GMT
Moreover, I do not share your fetish for "international laws." In fact, I would much prefer that the US should entirely disregard all international law, in its dealings with other countries. (And I certainly do not share your faith that "international courts" are more objective and justice-prone than American courts are; although I should add that I do not regard the late Osama bin Laden as a mere criminal, but as an illegal combatant.)
First of all I didn't state that the International Court of Criminal Justice, that the United States supports and is a party to, is more objective or justice-prone than the US Courts but it is certainly less bias when it comes to cases where there is a conflict of interest related to a nation in adminstration of the law. All criminal cases should be heard by an unbiased court of law.
It is strange that you oppose "International Law" when the "Unlawful (not illegal) Combatant" status of a person is addressed by the Geneva Conventions and the (International) Laws and Customs of War. Without International Law there is no such thing as an "Unlawful Combatant" because that status is established by International Law.
I have to ask if you really do oppose the Laws of the Seas and the Laws and Customs of War that are all established by International Law?
It is also interesting that because bin Ladin was killed and not brought to justice (even an "unlawful combatant" is entitled to due process of the law) we don't know if there was actually enough evidence to convict him of any crime. The only indictment against bin Ladin was for conspiracy related to the 1998 African-Embassy bombings but "conspiracy" is an extremely hard case to prove. Based upon the US Constitution if he had been acquited of the charge of conspiracy he would be assumed innocent and would have had to be freed. An interesting question for people to consider.
I am very much opposed to those still being incarcerated at GITMO for over 10 years because of their religious and/or political beliefs where there are no criminal complaints. There is no evidence that they committed or conspired to commit acts of terrorism or that they were unlawful combatants. It reminds me too much of what happened under Stalin in Russia.
To assert that international courts are not "more objective or justice-prone" than American courts are, but that they are "certainly less bias[ed]," strikes me as an inherent contradiction. It may be true that International Law has set up the category of "illegal combatants." But I believe the US should consider terrorists precisely that, and act accordingly--irrespective of any establishment by "International Law." Some things that may have a good effect may arise from something that is not especially good. But I simply do not believe that the end justifies the means--ever. And I certainly do not believe that bin Laden should have been tried in an American court. I am not much of a fan of President Obama--and his continual crowing during the 2012 presidential campaign that "General Motors is alive, Osama bin Laden is dead, and al-Qaeda is on the run"--became rather tedious, to say the least. But I am still very glad that bin Laden was killed. |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 7, 2014 1:48:06 GMT
I really cannot believe that you do not suppose that either Ron Paul or his son, Rand, are libertarians; but that they are just "portrayed" that way "by the media" (all the way from the left-leaning MSNBC to the center-right FNC).
We cannot judge a politician by what they have in common with a poltical ideology but instead we must judge them based upon their difference. I will not a few of the differences between Rand Paul's position on the issues that are in direct conflict with the Libertarian Party's position on the issues.
1. Rand Paul is a pro-life/anti-abortionist. The Libertarian Party is pro-life/pro-choice.
2. Rand Paul opposes open immigration and advocates a fence along all of the Mexican border. The Libertarian Party advocates open immigration.
3. Rand Paul seeks to reduce federal welfare spending by simply cutting the benefits. The Libertarian Party supports the transition to family, church, community based welfare assistance that would slowly reduce the necessity for federal welfare assistance. In short Rand Paul somehow believes that just cutting the benefits reduces the need for assistance while the Libertarian Party acknowledges the necessity exists but seeks to transition the burden on society onto the private sector from the public sector. (My personal opinion is that we need to reduce poverty because the burden to society doesn't change by just changing the funding from a "public" burden to a "private" burden over time - I advocate reducing the burden by reducing poverty).
4. Rand Paul is fiscally irresponsible as he has made no proposals that would balance the US Budget. Gary Johnson, the 2012 Libertarian Presidental Candidate, stated he would balance the US budget his first year in office regardless of what it took to accomplish that. Of course Johnson would have faced a hostile Congress in trying to balance the budget predominately from Republicans that don't advocate balancing the budget because it would require revenue increases and than means tax increases (that logically have to be imposed on high income earners).
5. Rand Paul supports cutting Social Securty benefits by raising the retirement age to address the future funding shortfall (ignoring the fact that while people are living longer their physical and mental ability to work and earn a living has not increased with the increase in their lifespan). The Libetarian Party supports privatization of Social Security. (I don't endorse the Libertarian proposal for how to privatize Social Security because it is "voluntary" but at least they have the right idea that it needs to be privatized.)
www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issues
www.lp.org/issues
I am not quite sure why you would imagine that an increase in taxes is required to bring in more revenue to the federal government. Although there is a point, beyond which, the continued lowering of taxes could, indeed, result in diminished revenues, the same is true of the continued raising of taxes. For instance, if the current 39.6 percent rate on top earners were reduced to, say, just five percent, that would surely result in less government revenue. But if it were increased to 90 percent--as was once the case--that, too, would result in decreased government revenue. The trick is to find the optimum balance. One need not march in lockstep with the Libertarian Party in order to be a small-"L" libertarian. (Even as regarding the Libertarian party, per se, it should probably be noted that Ron Paul ran for president on the Libertarian Party's ticket in 1988--just one year after having resigned from the Republican Party. But he has once again attached himself to the Republican Party--presumably, for entirely pragmatic reasons.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 7, 2014 10:05:52 GMT
To assert that international courts are not "more objective or justice-prone" than American courts are, but that they are "certainly less bias[ed]," strikes me as an inherent contradiction. It may be true that International Law has set up the category of "illegal combatants." But I believe the US should consider terrorists precisely that, and act accordingly--irrespective of any establishment by "International Law." Some things that may have a good effect may arise from something that is not especially good. But I simply do not believe that the end justifies the means--ever. And I certainly do not believe that bin Laden should have been tried in an American court. I am not much of a fan of President Obama--and his continual crowing during the 2012 presidential campaign that "General Motors is alive, Osama bin Laden is dead, and al-Qaeda is on the run"--became rather tedious, to say the least. But I am still very glad that bin Laden was killed.
You know I'm long-winded but I would ask you to read the following carefully as it addresses a serious matter worthy of concern related to the Constitution and laws of the United States and when the International Court of Criminal Justice should intervene.
There are cases of justice where a change of venue is necessary because a person cannot receive a fair trial or is not being prosecuted for a criminal offense. That can occur at the international level just as it can occur at the local level. Generally the jurisdiction of a nation's court take precendent but there are exceptions where the nation refuses to prosecute under it's own laws. That was the case with former President Bush that I will use as a case study but I would also note that I would address President Obama under the same criteria.
*****************************************
The Bush adminstration authorized the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" all of which violated Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 113C › § 2340.
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2340
All of the enhanced interrogation techniques were specifically designed to inflict severe pain and suffering that was outside of "pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions" and were, by legal definition, forms of torture. While many state that "waterboarding" did not lead to death (ignoring that the US had convicted people of torture for waterboarding historically) they ignored that over 40 people had died subsequent to being subjected to the "enhanced interrogation techniques" and that eight of those cases were classified as homocides (i.e. murder) based upon the autopsy.
We must also note that Title 18 goes on to address that if a US national commits an act of torture anywhere on Earth that leads to death it is a capital offense that can warrant life in prison or the death penalty and that those that "conspire to commit" an act of torture are subject to the same punishment for the crime except they cannot be put to death.
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2340A
All of those that used the "enhanced interrogation techniques" that were "US nationals" (e.g. CIA agents and/or members of the US military) and the President that authorized them (and the chain of command below him) were in violation of Title 18's prohibitions against the use of torture and all were acting "under the color of law" when they violated this statute. As noted in this statute it applied to offenses committed by US nationals outside of the United States and all of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" were committed outside of the United States.
The problem was that it's the Department of Justice's responsibility to prosecute offenses under Title 18 but the Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, was a co-conspirator in the violation of the law. When the DOJ failed to prosecute there was recourse because the Congress has the authority to address "High Crimes and Misdomeanors" under the US Constitution but it failed to exercise jurisdiction to enforce the laws of the United States that were violated by the President and his subordinates.
A crime of the highest possible nature (i.e. murder caused by torture) that violated US statutory law and the United States failed to prosecute under the law. This same offense is a violation of International Law and only because the US failed to prosecute would the jurisdiction transfer to the International Court of Criminal Justice. Unfortunately for "criminal justice" the United States has veto power over that International Court of Justice that operates under the authority of the United Nations Security Council so justice has been denied to the victims of those that suffered torture and the few that were murdered by acts of torture committed at the order of the President of the United States.
You may disagree personally but the fact is that under US law torture was authorized by President Bush and murder was committed and justice has not been served.
BTW - In my opinion some of the greatest unsung heros of the War on Terrorism are those CIA agents that refused to employ the "enhanced interrogation techniques" because they violated US statutory law and the 8th Amendment to the US Constitution. The orders they were given were "unlawful orders" and they had an obligation to refuse to comply with them. Instead of being raised to the highest level of honor for exemplifying the finest standards of conduct their careers have generally been destroyed because they followed the laws and Constitution of the United States.
Final Note: No, I don't believe that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, et al in the White House or the CIA agents that engaged in committing acts of torture, excluding those who's direct actions lead to murder, should have necessarily been sent to prison but instead they should have been convicted and their sentences commuted.
*****************************************
As for the prosecution of terrorists always remember that regardless of allegations and even when a criminal indictment exists there is always the presumption of innocense. We all "believe" that Osama bin Ladin was a "terrorist" but he was never convicted of any act of terrorism and, at best, we can only claim he was a "suspected terrorist" based upon allegations and the indictment. I'm not claiming he wasn't but only that it was never established based upon the Rule of Law where evidence establishes that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. There will always remain doubt as to whether bin Ladin actually violated any laws related to acts of terrorism as all we have is the "prosecutions" arguments. We do not assume guilt based upon allegations or indictments.
You mentioned that you didn't believe that bin Ladin should be tried in a US Criminal Court so where should he have been prosecuted for alleged acts of terrorism or conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism? I will note that I oppose the prosecution of suspected terrorists by a military tribunal at GITMO because members of the US military have an inherent bias. They are not representatives of the "average American" and do not represent a "jury of one's peers" that I believe is necessary for justice. Based upon comments from a top former FBI agent on Bill Mahar's show last year the FBI has successfully prosecuted about 200 terrorists in criminal courts since 2001 and there is no reason why terrorists cannot be prosecuted successfully in a US criminal court.
|
|
