President Obama

[AtticaFlinch]

You're right, technology has improved a tremendous amount, but don't tell that to the Sierra club and other environmental people. According to them they are all the rigs are made of tin and are susceptible to collapse if a seagull lands on it funny. I'm struggling to remember when the last major leak occurred from a rig in the gulf or California.

"Vilify" maybe a harsh term, but it's fairly close to it. He pretty much was fairly against it during his campaign, but in 2008, he was fairly open to drilling.

I don't know either, but I do remember as a kid, both in Galveston and Corpus, being required to wash the sand and tar off my feet before getting in the car.

[AtticaFlinch]

This one really gets me:

Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

On some level, when we don't allow due process for enemy combatants of a different nationality, I don't really have much of a problem with it on a visceral level. However, this guy's an American. Regardless of his views and his politics and his extremism, does he not still deserve due process as afforded to him under the constitution as a citizen of the United States? If we can find a way to justify killing this man, are we not setting a bad legal precedent that can be badly abused in the future?

[ricco67]

This one really gets me:

Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

On some level, when we don't allow due process for enemy combatants of a different nationality, I don't really have much of a problem with it on a visceral level. However, this guy's an American. Regardless of his views and his politics and his extremism, does he not still deserve due process as afforded to him under the constitution as a citizen of the United States? If we can find a way to justify killing this man, are we not setting a bad legal precedent that can be badly abused in the future?

During World War II, many US american citizens who had German roots (and Japanese, I would imagine), went to germany to fight. When we finally entered THAT conflict we probably shot and killed quite a few American Citizens. Sorry, I would not want to have a soldier ask an individual person and ask if he's an American citizen before he shoots.

It's called, "the price of war."

If he believes enough of in his cause to die for it, then I say we oblige him, if he was given the opportunity, he wouldn't hesitate to kill an american soldier.

[20thStDad]

I see it as an act of war rather than bypassing due process. If he were here in the states starting trouble, then he gets arrested and tried for treason or whatever. But if he's leading enemy troops against us? No sympathy.

I bet there have been hundreds of ordered, targeted killings of Americans by the executive branch throughout our history. I bet most people would crap themselves if all of that was public. The power and consequences the president has to deal with are far beyond what any of us can claim to understand, and I wouldn't be surprised if it went well beyond how it has been depicted even in works of fiction.

[AtticaFlinch]

During World War II, many US american citizens who had German roots (and Japanese, I would imagine), went to germany to fight. When we finally entered THAT conflict we probably shot and killed quite a few American Citizens. Sorry, I would not want to have a soldier ask an individual person and ask if he's an American citizen before he shoots.

It's called, "the price of war."

If he believes enough of in his cause to die for it, then I say we oblige him, if he was given the opportunity, he wouldn't hesitate to kill an american soldier.

That's fair, but here's where the nuance of what I was asking comes into play. If a person is killed in action, during a battle where shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later is a sensible policy, I don't disagree with you. However, that's not the case here. We know the guy's an American, and we're going to go out of our way to kill him without trial, criminal or military. His death won't be a battlefield statistic. His death will be deliberate. It'll be a calculated move by the government to kill an American citizen and deny him the due process of law.

Perhaps I'm not explaining this well. First, let me categorically distance myself from the man's extremist point-of-view. My contention isn't that we even need to respect his right to be subversive. My contention is merely that since he's an American citizen, and since American citizens are supposedly accorded certain inalienable rights, and since government sponsored death without due process for American citizens violates the constitution, and since violating the constitution is illegal, isn't this act illegal, and if we can justify it, doesn't this set a bad precedent that can continue to be used against American citizens in the future? In other words, what's to stop the government from assassinating every future dissident based on some arbitrary (and most importantly) unproven pretext? The inviolable rule of law is what sets us apart from the tyrannical whims of dictatorships.

[TheNiche]

This one really gets me:

Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

On some level, when we don't allow due process for enemy combatants of a different nationality, I don't really have much of a problem with it on a visceral level. However, this guy's an American. Regardless of his views and his politics and his extremism, does he not still deserve due process as afforded to him under the constitution as a citizen of the United States? If we can find a way to justify killing this man, are we not setting a bad legal precedent that can be badly abused in the future?

It is a bit disturbing, but only because the guy is getting special treatment.

There are already mechanisms in place to persecute terrorists either domestically or internationally, regardless of those individuals' home country; we should apply those same mechanisms to enemy combatants that are also citizens of the U.S. And ideally, we don't kill enemy combatants in the first place...we imprison and interrogate them for intelligence that we can use to further undermine the cause of terrorism.

The only reason that I can think of as to why there should ever be an assassination order (as opposed to the broader order to stop someone from doing something and merely authorizing deadly force if necessary) would be to prevent political fallout that might result from a debate over trials and punishment. And if that's the case, then we have American citizens being killed for the political convenience of the President. It'd be murder.

[ricco67]

In other words, what's to stop the government from assassinating every future dissident based on some arbitrary (and most importantly) unproven pretext? The inviolable rule of law is what sets us apart from the tyrannical whims of dictatorships.

Okay, then let's look at it this way:

But let's look at Anwar al-Awlaki as a whole, quite a bit of history as far as planning bombings and being overall in some pretty bad stuff.

Should we risk men to actually capture this guy? Nah. I think this is merely a formality in case we come across him while a predator nearby.

In this case, I think it's all fine and well to make this legal.

Subversion is a rather wide definition. I can be considered subversive in some things, and depending what party is in the white house even more so, but I don't think that a president would casually issue kill orders willy-nilly to suit his own agenda, so I'm sure that my life would hardly be in danger.

Now if I started picking up arms and threatened not only the president's life and tried to stage a coup or something from a foreign land, then I would say I would be in for a rather exciting, but short life.

[TheNiche]

Okay, then let's look at it this way:

But let's look at Anwar al-Awlaki as a whole, quite a bit of history as far as planning bombings and being overall in some pretty bad stuff.

Should we risk men to actually capture this guy? Nah. I think this is merely a formality in case we come across him while a predator nearby.

In this case, I think it's all fine and well to make this legal.

Subversion is a rather wide definition. I can be considered subversive in some things, and depending what party is in the white house even more so, but I don't think that a president would casually issue kill orders willy-nilly to suit his own agenda, so I'm sure that my life would hardly be in danger.

Now if I started picking up arms and threatened not only the president's life and tried to stage a coup or something from a foreign land, then I would say I would be in for a rather exciting, but short life.

Don't get me wrong, I'm completely OK with making Al Qaeda grunts conveniently explode into a million little bits using a Hellfire missile launched from a Predator drone piloted from someone at a remote terminal at Ellington Field. That's awesome in so many ways, and if one of those grunts happens to be an American citizen then so be it. It's just part of prosecuting a war.

What I don't like is that the strategic objective evidenced by these orders are to "allocate resources to track down and kill these very particular, politically unique yet militarily ordinary grunts" as opposed to "dismantle Al Qaeda using the most expedient means possible provided all of the resources at your disposal".

And as for your Anwar al-Awlaki example...horrible idea. We need to interrogate that guy and all other Al Qaeda leaders whenever possible. Intelligence gained from them could help us prevent the next attack on American soil or more effectively prosecute a war against Al Qaeda. The risks are acceptable.

[ricco67]

And as for your Anwar al-Awlaki example...horrible idea. We need to interrogate that guy and all other Al Qaeda leaders whenever possible. Intelligence gained from them could help us prevent the next attack on American soil or more effectively prosecute a war against Al Qaeda. The risks are acceptable.

I totally agree. I think it was USA today that actually showed a timeline of what intelligence lead to what arrests after a major figure was captured in Pakistan. While information might be great to have, it will have to depend on what circumstances they see him under. It would seem that if he going low profile and hanging out in the city, it might be doable; if he doesn't have many guards. Now if he was in a remote place with a camp full of soldiers; that could make thing rather dicey.

Capturing a subject looks great in the movies, but there are so many variables that can make a plan go to hell rather quickly.

[AtticaFlinch]

What I don't like is that the strategic objective evidenced by these orders are to "allocate resources to track down and kill these very particular, politically unique yet militarily ordinary grunts" as opposed to "dismantle Al Qaeda using the most expedient means possible provided all of the resources at your disposal".

Nice. You're not opposed to it for the bad precedent it sets. If I understand correctly, you're opposed because you think it's a misallocation of military resources.

Am I the only one who thinks this precedent takes us ever closer to a police state, effectively giving the government a free pass to murder any citizen it disagrees with?

[TheNiche]

Nice. You're not opposed to it for the bad precedent it sets. If I understand correctly, you're opposed because you think it's a misallocation of military resources.

Am I the only one who thinks this precedent takes us ever closer to a police state, effectively giving the government a free pass to murder any citizen it disagrees with?

No. The reallocation of military resources in this instance is evidence of the crime and also speaks to motive. That's why I emphasized it.

[AtticaFlinch]

Palin tries to take Obama to task on the nucular issue.

Yes, nucular.

[barracuda]

^

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlHEJtflcmo

[AtticaFlinch]

According to socialists, Obama isn't a socialist, and the idea itself is "absurd".

He and others say the assertion that Obama is a socialist is absurd.

"It makes no rational sense. It clearly means that people don't understand what socialism is."

Of course, it's reported in CNN, and we all know what a leftist, socialist rag CNN is, amirite Marksmu?

[RedScare]

You're right, technology has improved a tremendous amount, but don't tell that to the Sierra club and other environmental people. According to them they are all the rigs are made of tin and are susceptible to collapse if a seagull lands on it funny. I'm struggling to remember when the last major leak occurred from a rig in the gulf or California.

Umm...today?

Burning Oil Platform Collapses Into Gulf

There were also several dozen rigs that broke free of their moorings during Hurricanes Katrina and Ike. Some were never found.

[ricco67]

Umm...today?

Burning Oil Platform Collapses Into Gulf

There were also several dozen rigs that broke free of their moorings during Hurricanes Katrina and Ike. Some were never found.

Okay, you got me there, so I did a little research:

The top five oil rig disasters ever are:

Sedco 135F and Ixtoc-1 Well in Mexico in 1979: 3.5 Million barrels

Ekofisk Bravo Platform in 1977 off Norway: 202k Barrels

Funiwa No. 5 Well off the Niger Delta in 1980: 200k Barrels

Hasbah Platform Well 6. 1980 in the Persian gulf 100k Barrels

Union Oil Platform Alpha Well A-21 1960 in off Santa Barbara 80k Barrels.

These were the worst and all but one were in the 70's.

There has been a total of 40 documented rig losses/Explosions in 2000's, 41 if you count yesterday's. 14 of them were from Hurricanes Rita, Ike, or Dennis. The last major incidents were in 2007 by two different incidents, one due to a hurricane and the other capsized and sunk while being towed to shore.

Oil spill recovery wasn't really instituted until 1990 with the The Oil Pollution Act that was a direct result from the Exxon Valdez accident (1989) and the technology has improved dramatically since then.

BTW: The a significant portion of the 25 other incidents didn't spill that much oil compared to the 5 that were listed.

I still stand by my statement that the technology has come a long way, baby! I just don't keep up with the news on ever rig blowing up/capsizing/helicopter crashes (18) and seems like quite a few of them aren't that big enough of a deal for the news services to pick them up.

Additionally, quite a few of the 41 listed, only 8 were platforms, while the majority were Jack up (in this case, "Jacked up") or Semi-Submersible rigs.

[TheNiche]

There were also several dozen rigs that broke free of their moorings during Hurricanes Katrina and Ike. Some were never found.

Also, he did say "major leak", not merely fires, sinkings, or what-have-you. From what I had read, there was a slight sheen to the water, but nobody was reporting a major spill. Nonetheless, containment crews were being dispatched.

And btw, maritime environmental response technology really is impressive. Whereas the Exxon Valdez spill required that Exxon hire out all sorts of vessels (including my uncle's crabbing boat) with limited effectiveness and at exorbitant cost to them, nowadays there are mission specific assets and highly-trained personnel located near most of the major shipping lanes that could be susceptible to a truly "major" spill. Also, a greater number of tankers are double-hulled; that certainly helps.

[RedScare]

336,000 gallons of oil per day may not be much to you, but it is considered 'major' by most everyone else.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36683314/ns/us_news-environment/?ns=us_news-environment

Officials had previously said the environmental damage appeared minimal, but new challenges have arisen now that the platform has sunk.

The well could be spilling up to 336,000 gallons of crude oil a day, the Coast Guard said, and the rig carried 700,000 gallons of diesel fuel.

Crude from the well had been burning off but when the rig sank earlier Thursday the fire was extinguished. What's not clear is if the crude is still spewing below the surface.

Coast Guard Rear Adm. Mary Landry said crews saw a one mile by five mile sheen of what appeared to be a crude oil mix on the surface of the water.

I agree that oil spill containment and recovery are much improved, but to suggest that cleaning up a spill is as simple as wiping a Bounty paper towel across a countertop is flat out lying. This cleanup will be easier if they can close the blowout preventer and the winds keep the 5 square mile oil slick at sea, but if the winds change, it will cause serious problems.

The potential for these calamities is why some coastal residents oppose offshore drilling. It doesn't matter that they are relatively infrequent, but that they do occasionally occur.

[AtticaFlinch]

The potential for these calamities is why some coastal residents oppose offshore drilling. It doesn't matter that they are relatively infrequent, but that they do occasionally occur.

If John McCain had been elected president, this never would have happened.

At least Obama did this (Is he Madam Cleo? I just don't know):

Obama Administration Officials Release Roadmap

for Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Focused on Resiliency and Sustainability

The Gulf Coast region houses some of the most important ecosystems in the US, so my hope is that this just doesn't make it too close to shore. In deep water its deleterious effects will be considerably lessened. I heard this morning on the radio the explosion occurred when they were capping the well. Is that where the spill is leaking from, an uncapped hole in the ground? If so, how difficult will that be to plug without an offshore rig handy?

[kylejack]

This one really gets me:

Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

On some level, when we don't allow due process for enemy combatants of a different nationality, I don't really have much of a problem with it on a visceral level. However, this guy's an American. Regardless of his views and his politics and his extremism, does he not still deserve due process as afforded to him under the constitution as a citizen of the United States? If we can find a way to justify killing this man, are we not setting a bad legal precedent that can be badly abused in the future?

Its very very bad. If they won't even go to the trouble of convicting him in absentia it speaks to how weak their evidence is that he's done what they say. Allowing this to pass means that the President has carte blanche to order the death of any American merely on his word that the target is a Bad Guy .

[Marksmu]

336,000 gallons of oil per day may not be much to you, but it is considered 'major' by most everyone else.

http://www.msnbc.msn...ews-environment

I agree that oil spill containment and recovery are much improved, but to suggest that cleaning up a spill is as simple as wiping a Bounty paper towel across a countertop is flat out lying. This cleanup will be easier if they can close the blowout preventer and the winds keep the 5 square mile oil slick at sea, but if the winds change, it will cause serious problems.

The potential for these calamities is why some coastal residents oppose offshore drilling. It doesn't matter that they are relatively infrequent, but that they do occasionally occur.

What a crap piece of reporting..."could lead to a major oil spill" - its not leaking. Coast Guard has confirmed its not leaking, and the Robots have successfully closed the sea bed valve. That is just more MSNBC crap reporting, trying to get everyone all fired up about the devastating effects of oil and the environment.

The rig was burning natural gas, and onboard fuel, minor amounts of oil spilled during the blowout - its a capped well now, and its not leaking at all.

The environmental impact will be marginal unless something else goes wrong.

[Fringe]

I would think shipping incidents involving oil and what-nots being imported have a greater risk. 

[ricco67]

I would think shipping incidents involving oil and what-nots being imported have a greater risk.

Esp when you have oil tankers that get close to Somalia.

[RedScare]

What a crap piece of reporting..."could lead to a major oil spill" - its not leaking. Coast Guard has confirmed its not leaking, and the Robots have successfully closed the sea bed valve. That is just more MSNBC crap reporting, trying to get everyone all fired up about the devastating effects of oil and the environment.

The rig was burning natural gas, and onboard fuel, minor amounts of oil spilled during the blowout - its a capped well now, and its not leaking at all.

The environmental impact will be marginal unless something else goes wrong.

Actually, Fox News is reporting the very same thing from the very same sources. And, CNN has quoted BP's VP as saying...

Officials do not know whether oil or fuel are leaking from the sunken Deepwater Horizon rig and the well below, but BP Vice President David Rainey said "it certainly has the potential to be a major spill."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/04/23/oil.rig.explosion/index.html?hpt=T2

Your blood pressure would be lower if you would simply read the articles rather than blow a gasket prematurely.

[TheNiche]

What a crap piece of reporting..."could lead to a major oil spill" - its not leaking. Coast Guard has confirmed its not leaking, and the Robots have successfully closed the sea bed valve. That is just more MSNBC crap reporting, trying to get everyone all fired up about the devastating effects of oil and the environment.

The rig was burning natural gas, and onboard fuel, minor amounts of oil spilled during the blowout - its a capped well now, and its not leaking at all.

The environmental impact will be marginal unless something else goes wrong.

I'm with you on this one. The potential spill could be 330,000 gallons per day, and that sounds like a lot, but that only converts to about 6,000 barrels. That's not a lot. The Exxon Valdez carried 1,480,000 barrels. The more recent tanker spill off the coast of Spain released about 364,000 barrels. And as Ricco pointed out, this would be a mere fraction of any of the top oil rig spills.

The risks of deepwater drilling are being overplayed to stir up controversy. And if this actually were a legitimate environmental threat of the scale that it is assumed to be, we'd be talking about tankers...not rigs.

[VicMan]

Capturing a subject looks great in the movies, but there are so many variables that can make a plan go to hell rather quickly.

Sometimes the value of the kidnapping is worth the risk of encountering complications and exposure. When the Israelis tracked Adolf Eichmann to Argentina, the Israelis could have easily had him killed. Instead the Israeli government decided to have him captured and put on trial. A book about the case describes how complicated the surveillance and kidnapping plans were, and how many things could have gone wrong. Also the Israelis had a hard time smuggling Eichmann out of Argentina. The Mossad made it work, and Eichmann was put on trial, convicted, and hanged in Israel.

If possible the US government needs to do the same with Al-Awlaki.

[ricco67]

You have to remember tha,t it was a different time, literally and politcally.

The way the justice system works, I wouldn't doubt if he gets freed on a technical reason or we are forced to let him go because we offended some country.

No, I say we just kill him and poo on his grave.

[TheNiche]

You have to remember tha,t it was a different time, literally and politcally.

I say we attempt to capture and interrogate him and give Pakistan (or whichever other country harbors terrorists) the literal and/or political finger if necessary.

[kylejack]

You have to remember tha,t it was a different time, literally and politcally.

The way the justice system works, I wouldn't doubt if he gets freed on a technical reason or we are forced to let him go because we offended some country.

No, I say we just kill him and poo on his grave.

No, let's not have the President killing people just because he says he believes the guy is planning attacks. First let's have some evidence shown to a judge that the guy is planning attacks. The next person to be assassinated could be any of us.

[TheNiche]

No, let's not have the President killing people just because he says he believes the guy is planning attacks. First let's have some evidence shown to a judge that the guy is planning attacks. The next person to be assassinated could be any of us.

In the post to which you responded, Ricco was talking about high-profile terrorists, like Al-Awlaki...not American jihadists, per se. Specifically targeting a high-profile military objective like him is a very logical component of a war on Al Qaeda, and should not require the involvement of the judicial branch.