Comments on: Going Overboard

By: MJ Dull

MJ Dull — Tue, 19 May 2009 19:08:29 +0000

OK, I am a novice at this, but here is what caught my eye. The Prez gave authority to all involved to Kill. What does that mean.? It means that they can use their Skill and their Experience without the worry of who gets the blame if something goes wrong. He gave them the ability to complete the mission WITHOUT worry, they could simply focus on the issue in front of them which is what they are trained to do. What does Obama get? the blame if it goes wrong. Do you really think that he just wanted to play.? I think he gave those men the clear consience that is needed for mistakeproof decision making. And it worked. He didn’t foul the situation with details or pretend to have experience and take over. He IS the president and Commander-in-Chief and is held responsible for other’s actions all day everyday. As supreme commander, he did what he is supposed to do. Take responsibility not control. USA Mission: Accomplished. BTW, I believe in Hang’em now. They are true terrorists and there is no dispute or question which might require a jury. They boarded, they are guilty. There is one sentence, and Captains have the Authority to carry it out. Looks lengthy…I ‘ll end with :my Dad served on the SS Shasta.

By: Zane

Zane — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 18:42:04 +0000

Grumpy, you misread me. I did not raise the lack of a Presidential Order. I only pointed out that the use of certain forces requires one. I specifically did not say that these forces nor this situation required one.

Just sayin’.

By: Grumpy

Grumpy — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 05:32:12 +0000

SeniorD, You are so correct about “social correctness” in my verbiage about the consequences This is only true if we come to the some same conclusion. Keel hauling is also to be construed as an an acceptable conclusion.

By: SeniorD

SeniorD — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 01:19:29 +0000

C’mon Grumpy,

Piracy has always been a concern for the jus gentium. Such actors are, using the socially correct verbiage, mere players on a larger field.

I prefer the sort of justice applied by the Royal Navy, American Navy and even the French Navy – death by hanging.

By: SeniorD

SeniorD — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 01:13:42 +0000

When do pirates get rights? Do they give the same rights to their hostages?

By: Grumpy

Grumpy — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 23:21:43 +0000

This has been an interesting discussion. Points of order, I’m neither conservative, nor liberal. I do believe there are issues open for discussion. Obama was required to address specific issue with individual target audiences. The confusion occurs when we listen to the message that doesn’t apply to us. We need to see each message in its context. Was it necessary for Obama to seek approvals for the SEAL’s actions? The answer is both “yes” and “no”. As you all well know, there are portions of Presidential options which must be taken in consultation with Congress, on the other hand you have the “Laws of the Sea”. Obama established this as a “Laws of the Sea” issue. There is no difference between this event and 9/11. @Zane (18), you raised the lack of a Presidential Order, the situation did not meet the needed requirements.

@coco, I agree, their rights were not read to them. I do believe a signed copy of their rights, under the “Laws of the Sea”, was sent to them by a US Navy SEAL.