Monday, June 4, 2012

It’s A Bird! It’s A Plane! It’s A Killer Drone!

According to White House mouthpiece Jay Carney, Barack Hussein Obama will protect the American people from harm, particularly from terrorist attacks. He will do so by using logical, sensible and necessary military means to accomplish the goal. In other words, he will do pretty much anything except what he promised the American people in 2008.

Obama shores up his leftist base with unfulfilled peace, love and brotherhood promises while polishing his warrior credentials in the press for the rest of us.

Obama promised to close the detainment camp at Guantanamo as being a symbol of unjustified arrest of Islamists who had not been proven guilty of anything. As he has instructed us, even mad-dog terrorists who are foreign nationals caught in civilian garb on a battlefield attacking American and allied forces are entitled to standard American rights to trial in a civilian court. There is no such thing as a prisoner of war, there are only criminals who haven’t been given their due process yet. Sadly for Obama, this has not worked out too well, and Guantanamo remains open and ready for business.

Equally importantly, Pinky-Finger Obama recoiled at “torture” being committed by the Bush administration both at Guantanamo and on the foreign battlefields. Obama was convinced that all that was necessary was a kind word and a gentle plea, and the terrorists would instantly open their mouths and assist us in capturing mass murderers and future plotters. That hasn’t worked out too well either. We are getting very little information from the detainees (who have had their fear of drowning dismissed by kind Obama treatment). Much of the information leading to the killing of master terrorist Osama bin Laden came from enhanced interrogation techniques now banned by the Obama administration.

Obama was deeply-concerned that combatants and enemies of America and the West be treated humanely. He was horrified by what he considered the inhumane treatment of detainees. He condemned the “deck of cards” used by the Bush administration to identify the top al-Qaeda commanders. He determined that mass murderers who have no American blood and have planned to kill Americans both overseas and on American soil should be captured and tried. None of that cowboy justice for Mr. Obama.

In that, the President has succeeded, sort of. No more of this inhumane capture and interrogation stuff for him. And he has further decided that he was correct in his assessment of how foreign terrorists should be treated. They should be treated just like American citizens and former American citizens who make war on American overseas. Don’t capture them—kill them. Don’t interrogate them—blow them up. Furthermore, kill them in nations with which we are not technically at war. In fact, kill them in nations who are at least nominal allies—like Pakistan. Now I don’t know how others may feel, but it seems to me that death by drone is a harsher treatment than waterboarding.

The mainstream media have largely supported most of Obama’s dishonest and hypocritical ways of “protecting” America. One of those methods is to deflect major criticism of Obama’s incoherent and feckless foreign policy by using “leaks” to minimize the truth about Obama’s policies toward terrorists and terrorism. Suddenly, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and waterboarding have disappeared from the front pages. In their place, we now have the MSM telling us about the “safer” way of getting rid of terrorists. More realistic conservatives have a simpler name for it—the “kill list.” It comes complete with an expanded deck of cards, so roundly criticized by the Great Peacemaker during Bush's tenure. Equally suspect is the cozy relationship between the administration leakers and the release of sensitive information via the front page of the New York Times.

The Obama administration has more leaks than the Titanic. But unlike the Obama crew, the crew of the Titanic didn’t poke more holes in the hull in order to sink the ship faster. Obama’s friends don’t really care much about the good ship America, but they’ll do anything to protect their captain’s reputation. That includes leaking the details of drone attacks and covert ground assassination operations in Yemen and Pakistan to The New York Times. Included in the leaks was information that might lead to the exposure of agents and allies in the target areas. But what are a few lives in comparison to burnishing the image of The One?

Mixed in with the other justifications for Obama’s hypocrisy in the leaks was a mention of the 2011 attack which killed al-Qaeda honcho Anwar al-Awlaki. Now I’m one of those who think it couldn’t have happened to a nicer person, and treasonous dogs getting their just punishment doesn’t bother me one bit. But I don’t claim the simon-purity of Barack Obama. With all his squeamishness about the treatment of America’s terrorist enemies, where does he get his personal or legal justification for assassinating an American-born cleric? What happened to his love for civilian due process?

As long as Obama thinks killing is preferable to detainment, I have a suggestion for how he might fulfill his promise about closing Guantanamo. Free all the detainees, making sure not to ask them any delicate questions or treating them inhumanely. Put them on a comfortable ship, head them back across the Atlantic, then sink the ship with big-time explosives. It may sound a little harsh, but isn’t it more humane than keeping them as prisoners, using Obama humane treatment standards? And while we’re at it, we could send Eric Holder along on the voyage in order to make sure the detainees are properly treated during their sea cruise.

21 comments:

Tennessee Jed said...

No question, had Bush owned up to a "kill" list, the lame streams would have been all over him. Jay Carney is incredibly annoying, but I do "heart" Dana Perrino

BevfromNYC said...

Hypocrisy is the least of it. I go on record as one who thinks what Obama is doing with these drone strikes is murder. I don't care who the target is, we have no right to invade a sovereign allied nation without permission and killing people. Even Clinton gave warning before he bombed that aspirin factory! Obama uses the justification that being in the vicinity of a terrorist makes one a terrorist to kill innocent women and children. Well, he was in the vicinity of Bill Ayers many time, so I guess he's a terrorist too.

If our President has the authority to do that without permission from Congress, why not strike the drug lords in Mexico? They are as much an immediate threat to the US as any Islamic terrorist!

And the fact that so little has been said in the MSM about the leaks of top secret information was the direct cause of the 33 year imprisonment of the Pakistanti doctor who provided the DNA evidence on bin Laden should be considered treasonous.

AndrewPrice said...

I find the hypocrisy fascinating. If Bush had done this, the left would already be filing "war crimes" charges against Bush in places like Spain. But not this time, this time they're silent. That proves to me they truly don't care about any of the things they claim to care about, they only care about smearing opponents.

BevfromNYC said...

Oh, and let's not forget that Pakistan has nuclear weapons...

LawHawkRFD said...

Tennessee: Once the shock of 9-11 was over and we knew exactly who was behind the attack, these same cheerleaders for Obama were denying that we had any right to put out a "dead or alive" poster for bin Laden. Bush was an ignorant gunslinger in their minds.

LawHawkRFD said...

Bev: I tend to agree, within limits. Any nation which is harboring al Qaeda and other active terrorist groups should be prepared for us to exercise pre-emptive self-defense. When it comes to allies, even lousy allies, the issue is not nearly as clear. It's the problem with asymmetrical war that crosses international borders and an enemy which claims no national entity on whom we could declare war in the traditional manner.

As for Mexico, where's Gen'l Black Jack Pershing when we need him? In all seriousness, though, I don't see a clear parallel between the situation in Mexico and the situation in Pakistan and other dubious Middle East allies. Violent drug cartels just aren't the same thing as militant Islam.

I've seen this kind of dangerous leaks before, since I'm old enough to remember the Pentagon Papers leaks back during the Vietnam War. But at least that time the government wasn't complicit in the leaks which endangered our service men and women overseas. This time it is, and solely for political gain. The New York Times, however, was involved both then and now.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: And winning elections by any means necessary.

LawHawkRFD said...

Bev: Which is precisely why we should be spending our money in India and withholding it from Pakistan until it starts genuinely participating in hunting down the terrorists in their own homeland rather than hiding and protecting them.

There is no doubt in my mind that had we notified Islamabad about our intention to capture or kill bin Laden, he would have been long gone before we got there. Or worse, they would have denied us access, triggering a true international crisis. At least the way we did it didn't require directly defying the government of a "friendly" nation. It was sneakier, but probably a lot less dangerous.

rlaWTX said...

I'm sure that TOTUS and Co were members of a mediocre illusionist troupe in a previous life... But there, they didn't have the media in their pockets and regularly got run out on a rail when the locals saw through their "lookie here while I pick your pocket over there" and snake oil sales schemes...

LawHawkRFD said...

rlaWTX: That sounds about right. With a little luck, the Good Lord willing and the creek don't rise, we may do the same thing for our snake oil salesman-in-chief in November.

Patti said...

"Pinky Finger Obama"...holy crap, funnyfunnyfunny!

LawHawkRFD said...

Patti: Somehow, it just seemed to fit.

StanH said...

He's vaporizing those goons for the children. Hey,he might actually being doing something for the children? This is a dangerous administration, pardon the pun, and must be fired on 11/6/12.

LawHawkRFD said...

Stan: Aha! I forgot the children. All is forgiven, Barack.

tryanmax said...

Twisted as it seems, I think 0bama's foreign aggression, leaks included, is exactly what his base wants in terms of defense. The leftists I know are very clear that they are opposed to war and torture, but those terms do not include things like assassination and "strategic bombing." I think they think that all war would end if we could just coordinate our assassinations a bit better.

I've heard it said many times by libs in faux cocktail party settings that they support the government doing "whatever it takes" so we can sleep soundly at night, just so long as "we don't have to know about it." You'll note how important it is for the media to emphasize that their information comes from leaks regarding 0bama's military tactics. This allows Barry's base to turn a blind eye to his militarism. After all, we wouldn't know about it at all if it weren't for those rascally leakers.

I'm pretty sure that what we call leftist hypocrisy, they consider a smarter, more "nuanced" approach to dealing with our enemies. But of course, they haven't bothered to think of the implications that such a defense policy would have. They only think in "perfect" terms. No thought is given to the wrong man being in charge of such things.

Individualist said...

LAwhawk

So "logical, sensible and necessary military means to accomplish the goal" now includes requiring US Marines to read the enemy combatants their Miranda rights in their native language before they can attack them.

I am sorry I evdienetly and not up on my NY Times liberalese doublespeak because this just does not make sense to me.

LawHawkRFD said...

tryanmax: Interesting take on the subject, and I think very valid. War, warriors and the warrior code of honor are all strange anachronisms to them. They are sneaky in politics and think wars should be fought the same way--out of sight of liberal do-gooders.

I also noticed that the last 24 hours have been among the deadliest for our troops since the beginning of the war in Afghanistan. Another result of not knowing how to fight a war properly. You embolden the enemy by announcing when you're leaving and how you plan on exiting.

LawHawkRFD said...

Indi: You missed the trick, but caught the sarcasm. What you do is hit 'em with a drone, wipe 'em out, then read them their Miranda rights. Sorta like "Stop!" BANG! "Or I'll shoot." The final move has already been planned by Obama in advance. Immediately after being reelected (ahem), he will surrender and declare a victory.

K said...

Bev:"...these drone strikes are murder."

I can't agree. AQ is not a national entity, it employs asymmetric warfare and has to be dealt with in a non-conventional way.

The Israeli's perfected the method of pinpoint assassinations by hellfire missiles against HAMAS in Lebanon. They had two reasons to do so, first was to show that terrorist leaders could not kill innocents without retribution, but more importantly, it was to create space at the top of the terrorist organization in order to move your own agents up.

The best way to combat HAMAS or AQ or the KKK or Weather Underground for that matter is to infiltrate it with your own people. The drone attacks make that possible and also accelerate the process.

LawHawkRFD said...

K: As I said to Bev (above) I agree with you with some reservations. Like Bev, I have a problem with military attacks, including unmanned aircraft, within the borders of a "friendly" nation without their permission. On the other hand, I think we're long overdue for figuring out who our "friends" really are. On balance, I believe that the attack on bin Laden's compound was both proper and necessary, given the existing conditions in Pakistan.

As you and I have both mentioned, it's very difficult and even occasionally impossible to apply the traditional rules of war and honor alliances in an asymmetrical war with an enemy which can only be described as Islamist, a huge terrorist group without a formal country to declare war on. That leaves us with the hazy and malleable concept of preemptive self-defense. If I have to choose between observing old-fashioned rules of war and preventing the deaths of Americans and/or killing a mass murderer in somebody else's backyard, I'll go with prevention.

And anyone who believes that the Pakistani government and military didn't know that bin Laden had been hiding out near their "West Point" for a very long time would believe that Martians sank the Titanic. Brutal force is the only thing that militant Muslims understand, and probably the only thing that will ultimately stop them.

LawHawkRFD said...

Anthony: I have to agree with you in large part, but point out a couple of differences. As for Guantanamo holding people who "were just handed over to us by the locals," there is some truth to that. But having decided that this war is unlike any war in the past, the Supreme Court has done something it never did before--allow what we previously would have called "prisoners of war" the right of habeas corpus. That legal principle is not about guilt or innocence but rather whether there is sufficient proof to hold a detainee for further proceedings. In most cases, the detention has been upheld, but for those few who actually were the victims of "local spite" or false information, there has been release.

Andrew agrees with you that waterboarding is torture. I don't. But I'm also willing to concede that people of good faith can come down on either side of the issue. But like Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, I don't care if it's torture under certain limited circumstances. I would like to see waterboarding retained, but the Obama administration has determined otherwise. It's as much a political decision as a physical or philosophical issue. Unlike almost all forms of torture, waterboarding is terrifying but leaves no permanent effects. On the other hand, listening to an Obama speech is pure torture which has already had devastating permanent effects for nearly four years.

Post a Comment