Monday, November 26, 2012

What's wrong with this paragraph?

Though publicly the administration presents a united front on the use of drones, behind the scenes there is longstanding tension. The Defense Department and the C.I.A. continue to press for greater latitude to carry out strikes; Justice Department and State Department officials, and the President’s counter terrorism adviser, John O. Brennan, have argued for restraint, officials involved in the discussions say. 
.
.
WHHYYYYYY are the DOJ and State involved in deciding zip POINT shit about wars, or whom to kill, or how to kill them?  It's a W-A-R, or it was at one time.  If the Pentagon has become involved, the State Department MUST have FAILED at a diplomatic effort, right?
.
 And the DOJ should only get involved at the conclusion of any fighting, skirmish or war, to work with the Geneva Convention and the World Court to find and convict War Criminals, like they did at Nuremberg and  Tokyo after WWII.  Lawyers helping to decide who will kill, how many or through what means is just lain ridiculous. 
.
If that applies, then why doesn't the DoD get called for prosecuting crimes that span the borders?  I'm not being flippant, I'm asking a serious question here.  IF the DoJ is in the decision loop on drone strikes, then why doesn't the DoD get called about international crimes that cross our borders, coming in, or going out?.
.
But honestly, the best part of this article is the beginning.
.
Facing the possibility that President Obama might not win a second term, his administration accelerated work in the weeks before the election to develop explicit rules for the targeted killing of terrorists by unmanned drones, so that a new president would inherit clear standards and procedures, according to two administration officials.
.
I guess the thinking was that..."...but we might LOSE this thing, so let's HAMSTRING those guys who are coming in, then maybe the terrorists will run rampant and we can break it off in the Republicans asses in '14 & '16!   BWAHHAHAhahhahaaaaaaaaaaaaa.!!!!"
.
How is it that this isn't treasonous?  Or at least Impeachable for ANY administration to do this kind of crap!  You al know that i am very pessimistic about our future.  but I will say, if there IS another terrorist attack in America, I hope it hits some section of our country that will so shake this idiot voting age citizernry, that for 100 years they won't consider putting anyone in the White House who doesn't show up with his OWN CCW / CCH!

It seems to me that a person who would shoot miscreants to protect himself and his family and the population at large, might just try to protect ALL of our families over the long run.
.
.

6 comments:

Spider said...

"IF the DoJ is in the decision loop on drone strikes, then why doesn't the DoD get called about international crimes that cross our borders, coming in, or going out?"...

Um,.... because the Muslim-in-Chief has far more control over DOJ than he does over DOD, and can therefor get the exact result he wants?

What about, drone strikes are military business, which means DOJ has no jurisdiction. The same is true for the DOD which has no Constitutional authority to be involved in civilian crimes.

Hey bud, with John (the traitor) Kerry and Susan (dupe) Rice coming aboard, this stuff is all moot.

Anonymous said...

[url=http://www.sarvajal.com]viagra[/url]

Anonymous said...

Here's proof the Russians are a lot smarter than we are.

http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/11/irony-russian-news-claims-communists-won-in-america-with-obama/

Schteveo said...

Spider,
the whole DoJ / State thing goes back to Eisenhower, we can't blame Obama. You've gotta remember the Pentagon bitching at LBJ about lawyers picking bombing targets, their main concern being hurting civilians and bombing out villages instead of military targets in North Viet Nam.

The problem was [and is] the enemy had [has ]hidden among the general populace.

The bigger problem with DoJ and State is they operate from a stand point of negotiation and joint decisions about "X" international issue. I have no problem with negotiations. [I've been married 39 years on next Sunday, I understand negotiations!] But once the military is involved, the 'negotiation' phase has pretty much failed. And until the enemy is asking [or begging like the Japanese did] for negotiations, the military should be pounding their asses into the ground, long and HARD.

When the POTUS, regardless of which one, started using lawyers to help fight and arrange wars, we quit WINNING them! Except for attacking Grenada, where lawyers did NOT get involved, we don't win wars / fights / skirmishes anymore.

We are about to get our asses handed to us in the Middle East, mostly because we never tried to win. And that attitude of capitulating and agreement, with no way to assure the agreements, I lay at the feet of lawyers at DoJ and the State Department, as run by POTUS from BOTH parties.

Schteveo said...

Spider,
this DoJ / State involvement goes ALL the way back to Ike and Kennedy. It's not an Obama thing at all. It's a stupid thing, and here's why.

Most lawyers now, go to court ONLY when they have to. They cajole and cut deals and SETTLE out of court.

The Department of State has a job. It's diplomacy. They cajole and cut deals and SETTLE things by talking.

Schteveo said...

That's odd, the original comment from last night, that got 'lost', now pops up.