In interviews with The New York Times, three dozen of his current and former advisers described Mr. Obama’s evolution since taking on the role, without precedent in presidential history, of personally overseeing the shadow war with Al Qaeda.My mom, Ann Althouse, responds:
They describe a paradoxical leader who shunned the legislative deal-making required to close the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, but approves lethal action without hand-wringing.
Is there really a paradox here? He has chosen not to close Guantanamo, but to make it a low-profile political issue by never sending anyone there, and to build his reputation as tough on terrorism by regularly blowing somebody away.posted by John Cohen at 2:39 PM on May 29, 2012 [12 favorites]
The president’s directive reinforced the need for caution, counterterrorism officials said, but did not significantly change the program. In part, that is because “the protection of innocent life was always a critical consideration,” said Michael V. Hayden, the last C.I.A. director under President George W. Bush.Jesus H. Christ
It is also because Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.
It is also because Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.How do we know our strikes kill only militants? Easy: a "militant" is anyone who's killed by our strikes.
Counterterrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good.
BLITZER: But they are inspired, if you will, by someone like Anwar al-Awlaki, the American born cleric in Yemen. You, meaning the United States government, you tried to kill him after Bin Laden, but narrowly missed, right?Thank you. This is interesting when contrasted with the background of the judgement of the case brought by Awlaki's father:
NAPOLITANO: They are inspired. It is that ideology, and Awlaki has been a potential - you know, a very active propagandist as it were for al Qaeda and its ideology.
BLITZER: He's wanted dead or alive, right?
NAPOLITANO: He is wanted. Yes.
BLITZER: Dead or alive?
NAPOLITANO: Yes.
BLITZER: Even though he's an American citizen?
NAPOLITANO: This has been of concern, but yes, he is a very active member of al Qaeda.
But despite the United States's expressed "concern" regarding Anwar Al-Aulaqi's "familiarity with the West" and his "role in AQAP," ... the United States has not yet publicly charged Anwar Al-Aulaqi with any crime...As such, I would not consider a brief mention by an official on a talk show as constituting an official pronouncement. As much as I would be amused by the bizarre spectacle of alleged terrorists across the world desperately tuning in to Wolf Blitzer to find out who is going to be next to get a death notice, if we are to embrace the new regime of targeted killings I hope the government developes a more dignified process to inform the populace of these decisions.
The United States has neither confirmed nor denied the allegation that it has issued a "standing order" authorizing the CIA and JSOC to kill plaintiff's son... Additionally, the United States has neither confirmed nor denied whether -- if it has, in fact, authorized the use of lethal force against plaintiff's son -- the authorization was made with regard to whether Anwar Al-Aulaqi presents a concrete, specific, and imminent threat to life, or whether there were reasonable means short of lethal force that could be used to address any such threat.
To be sure, this Court recognizes the somewhat unsettling nature of its conclusion -- that there are circumstances in which the Executive's unilateral decision to kill a U.S. citizen overseas is "constitutionally committed to the political branches" and judicially unreviewable.posted by kithrater at 4:19 PM on May 30, 2012
The “kill list” story is a reminder of how much language matters, and how dangerous it is when the plain meaning of a word is ignored. [...] More disturbing than childish names for brutal things are the absurd meanings ascribed to more sober terms. The key ones are “civilians and combatants,” and “due process.”
Are these your weapons for the hard struggle? Is it for this then that Heracles' children should be spared? a man who has won a reputation for valour in his contests with beasts, in all else a weakling; who ne'er buckled shield to arm nor faced the spear, but with a bow, that coward's weapon, was ever ready to run away. Archery is no test of manly bravery; no! he is a man who keeps his post in the ranks and steadily faces the swift wound the spear may plough.It's real easy to wax heroic about how other people should conduct military operations. From the Yemeni government's point of view, Al-Awlaki was a problem of a US origin, on whose they were probably highly reluctant to risk troops of their own.
« Older The upcoming Worldwide Short Film Fest in Toronto ... | Guidelines [pdf] recently publ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by allen.spaulding at 2:23 PM on May 29, 2012 [19 favorites]