Why Americans Love Obama's Kill List

  • News
  • Thread starter Pythagorean
  • Start date
  • Tags
    List Love
In summary, the recent blockbuster New York Times stories cast perhaps the most unfavorable light on President Barack Obama's foreign-policy performance since he took office. First, there was the revelation that Obama maintains a “kill list” of potential al Qaida targets and signs off personally on major drone strikes in the continuing global war on terror. While Obama's involvement suggests a certain level of rigor in target selection, the article also highlighted the fact that the president is ordering military strikes, including against U.S. citizens, without any congressional or judicial oversight. Next came the revelation that under Obama's presidency the United States has not only continued but ramped up a de facto war with Iran, with cybertools intended to disrupt Iran's
  • #1
Pythagorean
Gold Member
4,400
312
Two recent blockbuster New York Times stories cast perhaps the most unfavorable light on President Barack Obama's foreign-policy performance since he took office. First, there was the revelation that Obama maintains a “kill list” of potential al Qaida targets and signs off personally on major drone strikes in the continuing global war on terror. While Obama's involvement suggests a certain level of rigor in target selection, the article also highlighted the fact that the president is ordering military strikes, including against U.S. citizens, without any congressional or judicial oversight.

Next came the revelation that under Obama's presidency the United States has not only continued but ramped up a de facto war with Iran, with cybertools intended to disrupt Iran's efforts to create a nuclear weapon.

Both stories speak to the lack of transparency in the Obama White House on matters of national security — as well as to the president's somewhat promiscuous use of force against declared and undeclared enemies of the United States. But if one puts aside the many good reasons to be concerned about such policies on legal and moral grounds, it's highly unlikely that Obama will be hurt politically by these revelations: if anything, quite the opposite. While some members of the president's own party might be offended by Obama's actions, the great majority of Americans seem blithely unconcerned. The stories will, in fact, neutralize Republican attack lines and bolster the president's already strong public ratings on national security. In a country that still maintains ill will toward Iran for the hostage crisis 30-plus years ago and fears the potential machinations of jihadi terrorists, Obama's actions are political winners.

Read more here: http://www.heraldonline.com/2012/06/09/4032952/why-americans-love-obamas-kill.html#storylink=cpy [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Scooter went to jail. I wonder who is going to jail for these leaks.
 
  • #3
skippy1729 said:
Scooter went to jail. I wonder who is going to jail for these leaks.
From the link:

In the end, there are plenty of legitimate policy reasons for the course that Obama has set in fighting terrorism and restraining Iran's nuclear program. But it doesn't take a cynic to recognize there is a tangible political benefit here as well. After all, these stories weren't leaked to The New York Times by accident.
 
  • #4
skippy1729 said:
Scooter went to jail. I wonder who is going to jail for these leaks.

"Obama's Self-Serving Leaks, His Selective Outrage and the Need for a Special Counsel"
The entire scandal has raised profound questions about the ability of the press corps to hold this administration accountable. Why aren’t journalists asking: Where was the administration’s outrage prior to the accusations of leaks? Where was the administration’s commitment to an investigation? Where was this administration’s denunciation of the national security secrets that were revealed in the stories? We didn’t see any outrage from this administration, because the “kill-list” story was a puff-piece intended to make President Obama look good. If the leaks in the “kill-list” story were not authorized, why haven’t we witnessed any officials who were quoted in the piece lose their job? Why haven’t they said that the quotes were lies or that they were misquoted or misleadingly quoted? It seems clear that the Obama administration miscalculated, believing there would be no fall-out from their support of the “kill-list” or Stuxnet stories.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregory...e-outrage-and-the-need-for-a-special-counsel/
 
  • #5
Note that the President hasn't denied that they leaked them intentionally, he just thought that it was annoying that they actually blamed him (his staff) for it.

This really did backfire on the President, and I think there's more fallout to come. It's just really too bad that the media will sweep it under the rug since they were so complicit in the lack of journalistic rigor necessary to really come to any 'real' (ie: not Obama-fed) conclusion.
 
  • #6
1. A responsible news organization would contact the WH for comments on this type of story prior to publication.

2. The news organization MIGHT strike some details from the stories if urged to do so by the WH on the grounds of national security.

3. Did the WH make any such protestations?
 
  • #7
The details that were leaked, IMO, were about such closely held activities, it would almost have to come from a mere hand full of people. The Times even says at least one leak came from the WH. http://www.newser.com/story/147827/ny-times-scribe-defends-white-house-leaks.html Put them under oath in front of a grand jury. Unless they are pros, they probably wouldn't pass a test on the box, so I'd get them there too.

And to skippy1729:

From the same article note it starts with "The public's right to know about the president and his policies outweigh secrecy and security issues, says David Sanger, the New York Times reporter..." We have a reporter deciding national security weight vs. public right to know. Yep, bet he's and expert that could make that call. Hence you #1, when it comes to the NY Times is a miss.
 
  • #9
So it wasn't Obama at all then? But I thought there was some shred of evidence that it was an intentional leak? Why else would people keep making these claims, suggesting Obama be put under oath to testify? Surely the only proof can't be "He didn't deny it"?
 
  • #10
The question is what did President Obama know, and when did he know it?

The fact that Donilon hasn't been fired or arrested means at this point implies he's acting under the authority of the President.
 
  • #11
This is why we need an independent council. For outing one CIA NOC we had one to investigate the Bush administration, and he kept going, even after it was known the leak was from Richard Armitage. IMO, what we have here is much worse. The leak of sources and methods in the latest underwear bomb attempt, the leak of the code created by Israel and the US against Iran, UBL Special Ops tactics, etc., and all we get is an internal investigation by DOJ attorneys that aren't even independent of those that are investigated! What a joke!
 
  • #12
There was a general concern during the first election that there would be perception Obama could not lead a country during wartime. His comments about finding and killing Oasma were actually a turn off for me but I think they felt it necessary to convince people he could be Commander in Chief. The eventual Op to take out Osama, and othe Ops besides, have kept up his image as not being soft on terrorism. I had no idea that his admin actively making plans for this sort of thing were ever meant to be secret.
 
  • #13
TheStatutoryApe said:
There was a general concern during the first election that there would be perception Obama could not lead a country during wartime. His comments about finding and killing Oasma were actually a turn off for me but I think they felt it necessary to convince people he could be Commander in Chief. The eventual Op to take out Osama, and othe Ops besides, have kept up his image as not being soft on terrorism. I had no idea that his admin actively making plans for this sort of thing were ever meant to be secret.

To be clear, I'm not a supporter of the President, however, I do support the actions that were done. And, I don’t think the President is soft on terrorism, but his view of how to deal with it may be at issue. Any President, IMO, will ultimately do what is needed to protect American lives. The question, IMO, is how late do you wait until you do something about a threat. My beef with the President is this information shouldn't be publicly known. The information as to the existence of a Saudi that we had planted, which gave us the heads up on the new style underwear bomb should never have been outted. It was an active operation. As opposed to agent Armatage outted (which Bush people were blamed for); at least she was not in an active OP or in a dangerous region of the world under cover... as far as we know. The publishing of the virus information that pointed toward the US and Israel should never have made it out. With all the viruses floating around, you'd have to wonder if Iran would have figured out it was anything other than an employee accidentally infecting their system with a thumb drive from home. The ID of Seal Team 6 as the UBL team, let alone the discussion of tactics, release of inside information for a movie, etc., is just beyond stupid. The President can declassify, so laws may not have been broken, but the judgment of those involved would appear to be a serious question.

There’s a interesting post be Judge Andrew P. Napolitano found here http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/14/squealing-vs-killing/ His is a typical lawyer issue about rights of accused and due process. While interesting in theory, does the application of that theory mean we have to watch the guy build the bomb and delivery system, and attempt to deliver it before we can defend ourselves? I hope not, but I also would hope that something akin to the FISA court would determine or at least have a say as to target appropriateness. Politicians deciding who to kill and “acceptable” collateral losses really bother me.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
This thread has become too overly speculative.
 

1. Why does Obama have a kill list?

President Obama's kill list is a term used to describe the list of suspected terrorists and militants who are targeted for lethal drone strikes or other forms of assassination. This list was created as part of the United States' counterterrorism strategy in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

2. How does Obama justify the use of a kill list?

President Obama has stated that the use of a kill list is necessary in order to protect the American people from potential threats. He argues that these targeted killings are a more precise and effective way of eliminating terrorist threats, rather than engaging in large-scale military operations.

3. Is the kill list legal?

The legality of the kill list has been a subject of debate. While the Obama administration has argued that these targeted killings are justified under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress after 9/11, critics have raised concerns about the lack of due process and potential violations of international law.

4. How is the kill list created?

The creation of the kill list involves a collaborative effort between various government agencies, including the CIA, Department of Defense, and National Security Council. Intelligence is gathered and analyzed to identify potential threats, and then the decision to add individuals to the kill list is made by the President or his top advisors.

5. Has the use of a kill list been effective in combating terrorism?

The effectiveness of the kill list is a highly debated topic. While some argue that it has successfully eliminated key terrorist leaders and disrupted their networks, others argue that it has also resulted in civilian casualties and created more resentment towards the United States. Ultimately, the impact of the kill list on terrorism is difficult to measure and remains a contentious issue.

Similar threads

Replies
45
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
9K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
55
Views
7K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
2K
Back
Top