- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Yes, and?
Yes, and?
Yes, I know that your not concerned with such things.
All legal.
Title 50 does not excuse the CIA of breaches to international law. But then, that's never stopped the CIA.
It is the POTUS who sets the policy and authorizes actions.
It was a president who outlawed assassinations.
A Presidential Finding may include lethal authority.
You republicans are fantastical with the **** that you support! Assassinations violate IL and "targeted killings" are right there too!
Not a Repub, but I have no problem with fighting to win, whatever it takes.
Oh yes, an independent I'm sure. Anyway, you guys, whatever you are, always figure that the ends justify the means, while always criticising other countries for every alleged unethical, illegal and immoral actions that they take. Nothing new under the sun.
That is a post without any factual foundation.
You just said whatever it takes to win. Implying if it means flaunting international law or presidential EO's so what. With that attitude, your criticisms of other countries doing similar are just a joke, a damn joke Jack.
A Presidential Finding has greater force than an EO. And I don't recall criticizing other countries "doing similar."
Presidential findings or EO's that violate international law make a mockery of the US every time we claim Russia and China are violating IL. :lamo
Given the Pakistan military's history with the Taliban I can understand why the WH wouldn't tell them about the mission. Bin Laden's compound was just a few blocks from a Pakistan military base. How did he manage to live there for so long (5 years?) under the Pakistan military's nose unless they were allowing him to be there? Why they didn't take him out themselves a long time ago?
It might be easier to believe Hersh's story if he gave the name of his source. He's not just calling the WH liars...but he's also calling the Seals liars, too.
This quote sums it for me.....
"...citing CNN National Security Analyst Peter Bergen's comment that "what's true in this story isn't new, and what's new in the story isn't true."
IL is just another tactical chip to play, and I don't care much about it. Russia is aggressive and undemocratic, and works against us whenever they can. I'd oppose them with IL or anything else that's handy.
Ok, but again, if Hersh's story is true, it doesn't necessitate that the Seals carrying out the mission were in the loop, and means that they wouldn't be liars.
Lol. We have the NSA spying on all Americans, Amash tries to kill that, the republicans kill the Amash amendment, and the court rules that the NSA is operating outside the constitution. That's just one example of US democracy at its finest. Why are conservatives so hostile to our constitution and international law. Really is pitiful.
If the Paks were really in the loop then best for all would have been to quietly hand over OBL. That did not happen. Why? Because Hersh's story is fantasy.
Yes, I'm aware of your pattern of thinking. I don't know whether Hersh's story is true or not. Hersh does have more credibility than you can ever muster up, but it's not really my focal point. I like the for public ears, capture or kill, but for private ears, assasination aspect of the whole thing anyway.
The NSA may or may not be outside the Constitution. I'll wait for the SCOTUS on that and be happy with whatever their decision is. IL is optional.
Hersh has been right about half the time in his career.