RIH (Rot in Hell) Ayman al Zawahiri!!!!

[Dan T.]

 

[bearrock]

7 minutes ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

 

Thanks.  It is hard to find details of the CIA's drone program due to its secret nature.  Below is an article (meant for the group) regarding the "questionable" authority for using things like drone strikes.  It speaks about Iraq and Suria but it seems like much of it should apply here also.

 

https://www.csis.org/analysis/us-airstrikes-syria-and-iraq-legal-authorities-and-presidential-war-powers

 

For the record, I'm cool with what he did.  But I would like more details and to see Dem reactions to it considering comments that have been made regarding AUMF and drone strikes in general.  Do they stay consistent in their statements?  That becomes an integrity issue to me that is important.  

 

I think it's an interesting issue that has to be resolved going forward one way or another.  I think Biden deserves credit for not defaulting back to 2001 and 2002 AUMF for any and all things terrorism related.  It does show that unless we're going to twist and turn 2001 AUMF into a pretzel (moreso than it already has been), we need some orderly delineation of where POTUS' article 2 power ends and where Congressional declaration of new war is needed as it pertains to terrorist organizations.  But that's not really new.  POTUS power to use military forces is kind of like the deficit.  It's the end of the world until your party is the one in charge.

 

Drone strikes.  I get the argument on both side.  But I still lean towards being reluctant to say send in the troops instead when it's not my life at risk.

[Dan T.]

So with the blades on that Kinetic Hellfire R9X, it looks like the CIA was simply trying to remotely shave al-Zawahiri's beard.

 

 

 

Edited August 2, 2022 by Dan T.

[Dan T.]

14 hours ago, Riggo-toni said:

We weren't at war with Pakistan when we hit Bin Laden, and the fact that he was hanging out in Afghanistan means the Taliban (ir more specifically, the Haqqani network) was violating the terms of the peace agreement not to harbor terrorists.

 

Speaking of which:

 

The building hit where al-Zawahiri was staying was OWNED by Sirajuddin Haqqani, deputy leader of the Taliban. \

 

 

[Fergasun]

@tshile

I think you are referring to Al-Awlaki... and my point is even more standing.  The President could have been impeached or could have been not elected (that strike was 2011...).  

 

Here's the thing all Americans should know.  The US, under three administrations, has instituted a drone strike policy that violates international and domestic law (as it applies to US citizens.)   

 

For the moment, we don't have Article III judicial review on whether targets are "imminent threats".  But, we do trust Congress has enough oversight and is guardrailing these programs such that they aren't abused -- implicitly. .

[The Evil Genius]

All i can say is this liberal has no problem turning these terrorist assholes into liquid. 

[China]

 

[Redskins Diehard]

3 hours ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

 

And you seem to think that you have some kind of knowledge that you don't want to share.  Either share with the class or quit telling people they don't know what they are talking about without providing explanation. 

I'm quite confident I understand the authorities used in this case and others like it.  I've pointed you in the direction to educate yourself if you choose to do so.  You can say thanks for pointing you in the right direction or you can give a thumbs down...it really doesn't matter to me. 

 

Oh, and instead of focusing your research on specific things it may be useful to understand source of Presidential authorities and how oversight is exercised. There's lot to be debated about there.  But if your starting with AUMF and DoD you aren't even in the right ball park.

[tshile]

1 hour ago, Fergasun said:

 

@tshile

I think you are referring to Al-Awlaki... and my point is even more standing.  The President could have been impeached or could have been not elected (that strike was 2011...).  

 

Here's the thing all Americans should know.  The US, under three administrations, has instituted a drone strike policy that violates international and domestic law (as it applies to US citizens

 

Yeah my point was it’s already happened and all of nothing came from it. 
 

some people (myself included) yelled “slippery slope!” And most didn’t care. 
 

it’s been made clear that the American people won’t care until they view a specific use case as being wrong. 
 

until then they are perfectly happy with the abuse of power/law so long as the individual instances fit within their worldview. 
 

which is pretty much how we treat everything. We’re always reactive and never proactive. So no one will really care and nothing will ever really be done about it until a president abuses the slack given to the office.

 

the only really question is: what exactly does that have to look like in order to happen?

 

on US soil would do it. Over seas? That’s a blurry line…

[Destino]

2 hours ago, Redskins Diehard said:

I'm quite confident I understand the authorities used in this case and others like it.  I've pointed you in the direction to educate yourself if you choose to do so.  You can say thanks for pointing you in the right direction or you can give a thumbs down...it really doesn't matter to me. 

 

Oh, and instead of focusing your research on specific things it may be useful to understand source of Presidential authorities and how oversight is exercised. There's lot to be debated about there.  But if your starting with AUMF and DoD you aren't even in the right ball park.

Are you smoking while wearing a trench coat and sitting just outside of the lamp light while you type these “the truth is out there” style posts. I’m going to just assume you are.  

[Destino]

3 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

All i can say is this liberal has no problem turning these terrorist assholes into liquid. 

As long as we’re not blowing up kids or schools or even just some random dude that happens to live next door, I’m great with it.  I don’t consider adults that freely choose to associate with Al Qaeda leaders innocent.  They knew the risk when they decided to hang out with a terrorist leader.  

 

I can’t get onboard with blowing up hospitals and the like, but they should never feel totally safe.

[Redskins Diehard]

1 hour ago, Destino said:

Are you smoking while wearing a trench coat and sitting just outside of the lamp light while you type these “the truth is out there” style posts. I’m going to just assume you are.  

Bad assumption.  But funny

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, Destino said:

As long as we’re not blowing up kids or schools or even just some random dude that happens to live next door, I’m great with it.  I don’t consider adults that freely choose to associate with Al Qaeda leaders innocent.  They knew the risk when they decided to hang out with a terrorist leader.  

 

I can’t get onboard with blowing up hospitals and the like, but they should never feel totally safe.

For the record, I'm good with it.  My question was regarding Dems who have been against these things in the past.  And as part of understanding the whole thing, knowing what authority was used to justify it is important. 

 

And pointing to some vague US code and EO that are comprised of thousands of pages with a "figure it out yourself" doesn't cut it.

3 hours ago, Redskins Diehard said:

I'm quite confident I understand the authorities used in this case and others like it.  I've pointed you in the direction to educate yourself if you choose to do so.  You can say thanks for pointing you in the right direction or you can give a thumbs down...it really doesn't matter to me. 

 

Oh, and instead of focusing your research on specific things it may be useful to understand source of Presidential authorities and how oversight is exercised. There's lot to be debated about there.  But if your starting with AUMF and DoD you aren't even in the right ball park.

 

Tell me you don't actually know what you're talking about without telling me you don't know what you're talking about. 

[Redskins Diehard]

4 minutes ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

For the record, I'm good with it.  My question was regarding Dems who have been against these things in the past.  And as part of understanding the whole thing, knowing what authority was used to justify it is important. 

 

And pointing to some vague US code and EO that are comprised of thousands of pages with a "figure it out yourself" doesn't cut it.

 

Tell me you don't actually know what you're talking about without telling me you don't know what you're talking about. 

So you haven't figured it out yet?  Do you know who carried out the operation? Was it DoD? If you figured out who conducted the operation(it's answered in this thread) what vague section of US law lays out authorities of that organization? 

Keep thinking it's the AUMF.

[bearrock]

Just now, Redskins Diehard said:

So you haven't figured it out yet?  Do you know who carried out the operation? Was it DoD? If you figured out who conducted the operation(it's answered in this thread) what vague section of US law lays out authorities of that organization? 

Keep thinking it's the AUMF.

But it's not CIA covert ops right?  So other than as support of military operation, what's the authority for CIA to conduct this open and public killing?

[mcsluggo]

far out of my wheelhouse here.    so, a question... 

 

 

how do these drone strikes work?   i assume that somebody has to train a laser or some other method of guiding the drone to the specific target real-time?  or is there some other way?   and if so.... why is a drone more efficient than a bullet? 

[TheGreatBuzz]

2 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

far out of my wheelhouse here.    so, a question... 

 

 

how do these drone strikes work?   i assume that somebody has to train a laser or some other method of guiding the drone to the specific target real-time?  or is there some other way?   and if so.... why is a drone more efficient than a bullet? 

 

No.  Hellfire is a fire and forget missile.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-114_Hellfire

 

But even if a laser were required,  it could be preferred over a bullet because you can laze from much further away and don't have to account for things like gravity.

[tshile]

1 hour ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

For the record, I'm good with it.  My question was regarding Dems who have been against these things in the past.  And as part of understanding the whole thing, knowing what authority was used to justify it is important. 

 

And pointing to some vague US code and EO that are comprised of thousands of pages with a "figure it out yourself" doesn't cut it.

assuming the authority is dubious (and if it’s not the accountability may be dubious)-

 

not exactly a dem but I do have a problem with doing the “wrong thing” with regards  to what the laws/rules/constitution allow. 
 

I approve of the individual instances but recognize the precedent allows for situations I won’t approve of. 
 

I’d prefer we work within the rules and laws that are built around accountability and when we find holes, we fix them. 
 

I also recognize “once in a life time opportunities” and I have respect for a person that has the guts to put their career, livelihood, legacy, etc on the line to do the right thing when the rules don’t technically allow for it. 
 

So. I guess it’s complicated. I’d prefer we be agile enough to not let us be held back by the rules when the situation calls for it - but that we use that as a learning experience to adjust the rules going forward. 
 

maybe I ask too much. 

Edited August 2, 2022 by tshile

[Destino]

1 hour ago, Redskins Diehard said:

Bad assumption.  But funny

[Redskins Diehard]

54 minutes ago, bearrock said:

But it's not CIA covert ops right?  So other than as support of military operation, what's the authority for CIA to conduct this open and public killing?

The CIA only gets authority from one section of US code... title 50. The DoD gets its authority primarily through title 10(title 32 applies to National Guard). 

Why would DoD not conduct this operation? They clearly have the capabilities to do it.

8 minutes ago, Destino said:

That's some skill! I like it

[Redskins Diehard]

27 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

far out of my wheelhouse here.    so, a question... 

 

 

how do these drone strikes work?   i assume that somebody has to train a laser or some other method of guiding the drone to the specific target real-time?  or is there some other way?   and if so.... why is a drone more efficient than a bullet? 

You are right. It is laser guided. But the laser can be from the launch platform or from another source(like someone on the ground).  So you don't have to have someone on the ground lasing the target 

[mcsluggo]

but you still have to have eyes on the ground confirming that he is indeed there, at this exact second.   right?   

 

i am sure a drone that bursts out of the sky is much safer for that individual.... but still not a job that i want!

[Redskins Diehard]

5 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

but you still have to have eyes on the ground confirming that he is indeed there, at this exact second.   right?   

 

i am sure a drone that bursts out of the sky is much safer for that individual.... but still not a job that i want!

Not really. I don't know what the latency is from there to here but video is probably near real time. 

[skinsmarydu]

6 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

All i can say is this liberal has no problem turning these terrorist assholes into liquid. 

Amen.  I'm always suspicious of the CIA, but I'm ex-military & whatever took this dude out is fine by me.

[spjunkies]

5 hours ago, China said:

 

 

Man, Delonte West is looking a lot better. Love to see it!