Obama Killing Too Many Terrorists

PATRIOT ACT AUTHOR:
OBAMA KILLING TOO MANY TERRORISTS

HP said:

"Why have executions increased?" asked Viet Dinh, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and one of the authors of the USA Patriot Act. Citing a recent Washington Post article on the increased targeted killing of terrorists, Dinh complained that "the president and vice president expound this fact as a fact that they are actually successful in war."
"That doesn't mean I think they are not illegitimate," he added. "No, we have every right to kill the other side's warriors. But at what cost? When we do not have an effective detention policy the only option we have is to kill them before we can detain them. And if we don't detain them, we don't know what they know and what they are up to."

Click to expand...

Bush Official Criticizes Obama For Killing Too Many Terrorists

Seems strange to hear this even though we've captured a couple of key leaders over the past few days.

CNN said:

Word of Salam's arrest comes days after news of the capture of the Afghan Taliban's reputed second-in-command, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar. Taliban sources and Omar said several other suspected members of the Afghan Taliban were arrested with Salam, but their identities are not clear.

Click to expand...

Another Taliban leader captured in Pakistan – Afghanistan Crossroads - CNN.com Blogs

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/19/bush-official-criticizes_n_469326.html?igoogle=1

It looks like Republicans are forgetting we are at war right now.

I don't see this as an application of the death penalty (which I oppose) it's targeting enemy combatants in a combat zone. If you want to win a war, that's what you need to do. Republicans I think, are more in the business of milking a conflict for maximum defense spending than they are in the business of winning a war and then going home.

If their outside of the combat zone then every effort should be made to capture them (within reason) and then treat them as prisoners or war, criminals or both. If thier in the combat zone, our primary purpose should be threat elimination.

Saving Hawaii said:

I hate to support the death penalty, but I figure that we save quite a few US soldiers and live by simply offing enemy leaders rather than leading risky missions to capture them.

I am the law! Put down your weapons and prepare to be judged.

Click to expand...

I don't think so, this is differant... Republicans aren't disagreeing on real issues, their creating straw men most of the time and then attacking trying to get Democrats to defend them.

Their intent doesn't seem to be getting legislation passed that is acceptable to both parties, it's to brand the President a failure. They attack the President on anything, flinging mud on every issue in the hope that some of it will stick. Sure, there are normally some legislators in each party who show such extreme partisan behavior, however I've never seen an entire party behave in such a manor.

ChristianPilot said:

1) All Republicans do not agree on this issue, as surely all Democrats don't either.

2) Democrats did the exact same thing during the Bush administration (and still do): support it when it will help their agenda, oppose it when it doesn't.

3) Killing terrorists is win-win. They WANT to die for their cause and it's much cheaper and easier to kill them compared to arresting them.

Not only is trying to arrest them more dangerous for our soldiers but then you have to feed them, clothe them, treat their wounds, house them, transport them to Guantanamo (or wherever), keep them there for years, put them on trial, then keep them for their sentence or execute them.

That being said, money shouldn't matter if it's a moral issue. But I don't think killing enemy combatants is immoral at all.

Click to expand...

lordbt said:

Then you should be able to name these republicans and cite specific actions.

Click to expand...

Did even one Republican stand up for health care reform? It is the single largest economic issue driving growth in government expenditures. How can the economy grow if every year Americans are spending more and more on health care and less and less on everything else? How can government debt go down when growing health care costs are driving expenditures thought the roof?

How many Republicans are encouraging action on the subject of climate change? From a risk perspective... even if you believe climate change to be unlikely... the catastrophic changes that are being predicted should be enough to warrant action to reduce carbon emissions. Despite the cherry picking being done by global warming denyers... the evidence is strong enough to convince 97% of climatologists actively conducting research.
Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real - CNN.com

Then there are the constant attacks on national security... What kind of specific actions are you looking for? Here is just one example:

YouTube - Obama Using the Word Terrorist a Billion Times

lordbt said:

I believe they all did. They just didn't support the top down government run solution put forth by the democrats. Even I support health insurance reform, but there is no compromise I could make between what I believe and what Obama believes. What you want is for those who disagree with you to abandon their principles. That is your definition of compromise. In fact it is surrender.

Click to expand...

So what Republican states have stepped up and instituted health care reform? If Republicans had solutions that could be implemented at a lower level than the Federal government why don't we see them? I don't see that, all I see is Republicans struggling against reform of an industry that desperately needs reform.

Again if they dont believe that man is causing a change in the climate or believe that he may be but are unwilling to submit to a state mandated solution, why would they submit? You want them to abandon their principles in favor of yours. What you dont seem to understand is that there are people out there who believe that the state should not have the power or authority to impose its will upon a free people. Why on earth would they compromise with someone who believes otherwise?

Click to expand...

So what's the alternative to a State sponsored solution? The people should be able to use government to take actions to deal with threats like global warming. How do you suggest we lower carbon in the atmosphere to 350ppm without government insuring that it makes business sense for companies to lower their carbon emissions?

Some info on why we need to get carbon in the atmosphere below 350ppm: 350 Science | 350.org

I don't think this issue is a whole lot different than killing terrorists... if Obama wants to do it, it must be wrong. That knee jerk reaction is jeopardizing our national security and possibly millions of lives.