This is mostly impossible

[bigtree]

President Obama from his address tonight: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/02/obama-text-spee.html


". . . I will not allow terrorists to plot against the American people from safe havens half a world away."


I think it's almost impossible to stop 'terrorists' from 'plotting', wherever they are.

I think the language is meant to provide cushion to a weak, undefined set of justifications for military activity abroad; perhaps also justification for holding on to remnants of the last administration's 'war on terror' - like keeping the lid on detainees' accounts of torture and abuse at Gitmo and other 'black sites' in their rendition . . . like keeping up to 50,000 soldiers in Iraq to 'fight al-Qaeda' and claiming they're not 'combat troops'.

The line got a lot of applause, anyway . . .

[eleny]

1. It's hard to plot when you're dead

That was the underlying message I heard.

[ezgoingrl]

17. You mean it's hard to plot when you're laid out

in a plot?

[leftstreet]

2. I think you're right

I heard it as newspeak for justifying global US military presence

[bigtree]

10. It's not new, is it?

[leftstreet]

11. lol, no not really

I guess I should have said 'demspeak.'

[elocs]

3. Enlighten us as to what inspiring words you believe he should have used. n/t

[bigtree]

5. he should have left the jingoistic nonsense out

It's snow, yo.

[Johnyawl]

4. You missed the main point...

...". . . I will not allow terrorists to plot against the American people from safe havens half a world away."

Pakistan should pay heed.

[Adsos Letter]

6. That was my thought...

not Afghanistan...Pakistan...the Tribal Areas, specifically.

[bigtree]

8. in that case

. . . he would be calling out the leadership of Pakistan for the ceasefire agreement they forged with the Taliban in Swat.

[Adsos Letter]

14. And that may very well be the case.

[Johnyawl]

41. It seems to me he just did.

Our President is not a stupid man; he can't "call them out" publically. But the Pakistan government is not stupid, either. They knew who he was talking to.

[GiveMeFreedom]

18. True

The reason he said that, I believe is to finish what Bushco started, find Bin Laden, in whatever country he's hiding in and kill him. Then there will be no reason to stay there and he can claim victory, where the repubs failed. I do hope that happens.

[bigtree]

19. I think its naive to expect that 'finding bin-Laden' will end this

. . . will end all of the military constructions which make up the 'war on terror'. It's weak justifications like the 'plotting' phrase which have allowed the military to keep flailing our nation's defenses at mere ghosts of bin-laden stirred to the resistance of our military advance on their homeland.

If we want to end his reign and influence we'll have to stop giving those who live in the region reason to align with the organization pledged to resist NATO and the U.S. forces.

[Soylent Brice]

33. BINGO.

gotta know how to read between the lines.

[bkkyosemite]

7. As he said in his campaign if Pakistan won't get em he will....he will blow those mountains away. He

is saying he means business.

[bigtree]

9. I think that strategy is already proving counterproductive to his intent for a stable Afghanistan

I see, though, that he takes a different tack on that.

[OwnedByFerrets]

27. And if China decides to "blow cities away" in America because we

are protecting Chinese dissidents, will you rah rah their words also??

[EmilyAnne]

12. Bagram is no longer a safe haven against the Geneva convention. Bagram detainees do not receive US

constitutional rights and, therefore, do not have access to US trials. Obama has stated that he will unequivocally follow the Geneva convention in regards to all detainees, whether in Guantanamo, Bagram or anywhere else.

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld should be tried for war crimes for inventing any sort of circumstances in which human beings are not protected by the Geneva conventions. Never mind Geneva, they deprived people of basic human rights by allowing the torture and even murder of detainees. Do you know if there is a statute of limitations on charges of war crimes?

I agree with you that the entire premise of the "war on terror" makes about as much sense as the "war on drugs." Its a war on an abstract concept and I don't see how such a thing is possible. After seven years of making such a disaster out of Iraq and Afghanistan, we need a way out the screws the people there the least possible. We at least need to provide security in Afghanistan so they can have safe elections in August. They need to have a viable government. We can't leave them without any resources.
In Iraq, we can't leave them with human feces and disease in their running water system...the system that we taxpayers paid a Cheney related contractor to build. There is just so much corruption on so many levels in Iraq, that it boggles my mind.

[bigtree]

13. you make a good point about Geneva and his stated intention to follow the provisions

I'll edit that . . . just a string of thoughts.

[Adsos Letter]

16. Your post is why it would be great to sit down with other DUer's for awhile...

Sometimes string-of-thoughts are the best. :hi:

[mmonk]

20. That only works if he officially drops the unlawful enemy combatant

canard and designation.

[EmilyAnne]

22. I don't understand how this is legal. The word "combatant" is in both the Geneva and the Hague.

An "unlawful enemy combatant" is still a combatant. Why does it seem so easy to me to make a legal argument against Bush Co. A war crimes trial would be a slam dunk. But, the last 8 years have shown me that I am rarely on the same page as the majority of Americans.

[mmonk]

24. I posted this video on the term "unlawful enemy combatant" but

it didn't get any responses.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=385&topic_id=275217

[EmilyAnne]

37. Thanks for posting that. It was great. It really drove home just how flawed the whole idea of

holding people until the end of the "war on terror" is.

Correct me if I'm wrong but, according to Geneva, combatants and POWs can be held until the end of war. You know a lot more about this than I do, so let me know if I am misreading it.

How the hell can a "war on terror" ever end? It seems to me that it doesn't even matter what the detainees are called. They can all be held until the end of the war and, I suppose, any citizens of any country deemed our "enemies" in this war on terror can be held indefinitely. Whether they are POWs, combatants, unlawful enemy combatants. They can all be held indefinitely.

Maybe, in this era of a new kind of war, we need to have another protocol added to deal with this kind of detainee. There can't be a humanitarian no-man's land where people can be stashed indefinitely. After facing a new kind of war fare in Rwanda/ Uganda that involved child soldiers, the international community attempted to address it with symposiums and agreement about the rights of children. I don't think the US signed on, but that's another story.

It seems that, even though this kind of war is bullshit, if it is going to be waged, some new agreements must be made to address its unique problems.

[Adsos Letter]

15. Along the lines in which this thread is trending....

did anyone listen to Thomas Ricks interview on KGO am this morning, re: Iraq/Afghanistan? (I realize it's a Bay Area station, but I think Owens broadcasts to other regions)

[Odin2005]

21. Why am I not suprised the Naive Pacifist bunch is moaning and groaning?

Want some cheese with that whine?

[Mari333]

26. go enlist. right now. nt

[Odin2005]

29. What kind of BS argument is that?

For one thing, I'm not eligible for psychiatric reasons. And another thing is that this notion that "if you support military intervention in X you should join the military" is simply fallacious, lots of people aren't cut out for the military service, or thier particular skills and abilities mean they would serve society better elsewhere.

[Mari333]

36. look, Im sure you are a nice person and mean well

but to promote sending other peoples kids to perpetual wars and not be willing to go yourself is exactly why people promote wars. they dont have to deal with the reality. they think its a video game. they dont have to watch their friends have their bowels blown out on a battlefield, or pick up a dead child from a gutter whose arms and legs are gone. until they are willing to do that, they are just speaking of something they know nothing about and its essential that every person on earth ask themselves is that worth it..
we have created MORE terrorists with our presence in the mideast, not less. the faster we get the hell out of there the faster we can choose diplomacy and reason over blowing up our soldiers and civilians.
military might does nothing but create chaos. it does nothing but destroy. and before you buy into any propoganda from the govt, please please check out who is making Money off of these wars. thats where the real reason lies.

[Odin2005]

39. I have a cousin who served in Iraq, and another cousin who will be going to Afghanistan...

...later this year most likely once he is done with basic training. I have a close friend who served in Afghanistan. I may not be there with them but THEY TELL ME WHAT IS GOING ON so I know damn well it's no video game.

[bigtree]

28. I just want to respond to each jingoistic expression by this administration

. . . while the words are still floating in the air. It's much harder to nail them down after they're translated into some devastating action in defense of them.


"Americans share with the English that conscientious befuddlement, that sanguine, profitable naivete, which has let the English make wars and build empires and plot whole continents like kitchen gardens—all the time ignoring the cost in human terms . . ." -Jane Kramer

[EmilyAnne]

23. By the way, check out this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5129664

[Mari333]

25. adolescent chest thumping bullshit

to appease that bloc of voters, you know, the adolescent chest thumpers. blechh.

[Odin2005]

30. Calling people with opinions you disagree with "immature adolescents" is immature itself.

[bigtree]

31. kinda like calling them "Naive Pacifists"

:eyes:

[Odin2005]

32. No, because "naive" is a perfectly apt discription of them.

[bigtree]

34. I've got a word for you

'hypocrisy'

[Mari333]

35. badabing! nt

[roody]

38. He loves the phrase "safe havens."

Too bad most of Bush/Cheney plotting took place in the White house, a safe haven.

[Time for change]

40. I'm afraid you're right about that

Though maybe it's also just the politically mandatory tough talk that Americans have come to expect of their presidents.

Still, I don't like it at all. We can't even prevent terrorists from plotting within our own country, let alone all over the world.