K-9 Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 No, I'm being not sarcastic. I don't need to be familiar with maritime law to expect a Congressional investigation as to why President Obama authorized US Navy snipers to kill two Somali pirates. We need to know what other non-deadly options failed way before Obama authorized their killings. Far too many unanswered questions here. Pity the pirates are DEAD. We'll never get their side of the story. They're guilty as hell for piracy but we're not certain that they should have been killed. I guess that's lucky for Obama...somehow. Well, what can I say? If ignorance is bliss, in this case you are very happy. Perhaps we should investigate whether Thomas Jefferson was violating pirates' rights when he sent and authorized use of force by US Naval ships off the Barbary Coast as well. While Obama gave the authorization, the ORDER to fire came directly from the on scene commander who has the authority, indeed the responsibility, to order the snipers to shoot if he believes the life of the captain was in danger. One of the pirates was seen pointing an AK-47 at the back of Capt. Phillips. The on scene commander gave the order to shoot. And he had EVERY right to do so, under EVERY convention. Ironically, there are many right-wing groups actually trying to DIS-credit Obama by saying he gave no such authority at all. As it's his responsibility to protect American lives, he DID give the authority. But ONLY the on scene commander can (and should have) given the ORDER. Below is a quote from a right-wing blog called the Gateway Pundit: Just finished listening to the press conference w/ ADM Gortney about the rescue of Captain Phillips. At the time it happened the USS Bainbridge was towing the lifeboat to calmer waters as the sea state was deteriorating. One of the pirates was on board the Bainbridge as the talks about obtaining Phillip's release continued. The lifeboat was approx. 25 m behind the Bainbridge when snipers on the fantail observed one of the pirates in the pilot house of the lifeboat pointing an AK-47 at the back of a tied up Phillips and the other two pirates on board were visible (at least shoulders and heads). The standing authority gave them clearance to engage the pirates if the life of the captain was in imminent danger. The on scene commander deemed this to be true and gave the order to fire. All three bad guys were taken out and then a rigid inflatable boat went to the lifeboat to retrieve Phillips. It is unknown at this point whether the shooters were SEALs or Marine Scout Snipers as both would have been available. This was not a rescue attempt ordered by National Command Authority i.e. the President. It was a reaction by the on scene commander under standard authority to safeguard the life of a hostage. http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/04/...order-kill.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 YOU can buy all the guns you want.. Try finding ammunition!! With all of the "End of Day's" types paranoid that Obama will take their rights away ammo is becoming scarce. http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/04/ammo.shortage/index.html http://www.tricities.com/tri/news/local/ar...t_supply/21644/ I was catching up last night with an old wingnut buddy I'l call "Air Force Boy". He was whining about not being able to get ammo. When I explained to him that he and his other wingnut buddies were the cause of the shortage not "Obama taking it away" he admitted that it was available, but the prices had shot up and he didn't want to pay them. Then he laughed and said well that's capitalism. My husband's first comment was "why doesn't he just get a reloader" and then "that's why I joined the Marines and not the Air Force." :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PearlHowardman Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 While Obama gave the authorization, the ORDER to fire came directly from the on scene commander who has the authority.... Nice try but the buck stops with Obama's authorization. Without that authorization the US military commander never would have had the Somali pirates killed. During the presidential campaign Barack Obama made an issue regarding talking with Iran. Well, did he talk with the Somali pirates? Did he find out what they wanted? That was the point of the Somali pirates hijacking the ship - they wanted money. Why wasn't he willing to give them what they wanted so they would leave the hijacked ship peacefully to avoid violence? Why didn't Obama do that? Once President Obama got involved he could have said "no, give the Somali pirates what they want. I want a peaceful resolution here - we'll worry about the money later." What non-deadly options were explored and ruled out before Obama gave the kill authorization? And why were the non-deadly options ruled out? Bottom Line: The Somali pirates may have been killed needlessly. A Congressional inquiry is warranted here. No other nation or even NATO authorize snipers to kill pirates. Only President Obama does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Nice try but the buck stops with Obama's authorization. Without that authorization the US military commander never would have had the Somali pirates killed. During the presidential campaign Barack Obama made an issue regarding talking with Iran. Well, did he talk with the Somali pirates? Did he find out what they wanted? That was the point of the Somali pirates hijacking the ship - they wanted money. Why wasn't he willing to give them what they wanted so they would leave the hijacked ship peacefully to avoid violence? Why didn't Obama do that? Once President Obama got involved he could have said "no, give the Somali pirates what they want. I want a peaceful resolution here - we'll worry about the money later." What non-deadly options were explored and ruled out before Obama gave the kill authorization? And why were the non-deadly options ruled out? Bottom Line: The Somali pirates may have been killed needlessly. A Congressional inquiry is warranted here. No other nation or even NATO authorize snipers to kill pirates. Only President Obama does. Surely you can find something more reasonable to B word about so incessantly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Stop making Obama out to be something he's not. Goodness no wonder you people hate the guy. You do not have anything close to an accurate perception of what or who he is. I'd hate him too if I was as uninformed as you. Its payback for all of the Bush hating.....makes sense..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PearlHowardman Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Surely you can find something more reasonable to B word about so incessantly. And what is more reasonable than asking the President of the United States to fully account for his decision to authorize US snipers to kill people? What's more important than life-and-death decisions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PearlHowardman Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Its payback for all of the Bush hating.....makes sense..... It's more than just Obama's waterboarding/torture hypocrisy. It should be automatic that Congress investigate ANY US President who authorizes the killing of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Nice try but the buck stops with Obama's authorization. Without that authorization the US military commander never would have had the Somali pirates killed. During the presidential campaign Barack Obama made an issue regarding talking with Iran. Well, did he talk with the Somali pirates? Did he find out what they wanted? That was the point of the Somali pirates hijacking the ship - they wanted money. Why wasn't he willing to give them what they wanted so they would leave the hijacked ship peacefully to avoid violence? Why didn't Obama do that? Once President Obama got involved he could have said "no, give the Somali pirates what they want. I want a peaceful resolution here - we'll worry about the money later." What non-deadly options were explored and ruled out before Obama gave the kill authorization? And why were the non-deadly options ruled out? Bottom Line: The Somali pirates may have been killed needlessly. A Congressional inquiry is warranted here. No other nation or even NATO authorize snipers to kill pirates. Only President Obama does. Nice try, indeed. Come back when you know what you're talking about. There is a difference between hoping to not have to kill pirates and returning them to their governments for prosecution which is what you're referring to and what NATO countries, including the US have done in the past. The problem occurs when there is no formal government in place (like Somalia since '92) and no legitimate authority to turn them over to. That said, pirates, being classified as "enemies of humanity" may be sumarily executed by ship captains at sea if they deem it necessary. Secondly, the POTUS has the right to authorize the use of deadly force if American lives are in danger and military commanders have the right to carry out the order if, like those ship captains who have the right to kill pirates, they deem it necessary. If you had seen that pirate with the AK-47 pointed at the back of a US hostage's head, what would you do? No wait, you'd conduct a congressional investigation to see what/why/anything would/should/could be done. I've witnessed much idiocy on this BB before. Much if it self-induced. But you're taking it to a whole new level with this ridiculous crusade. What is your point? You don't like Obama? Is it because of the recent release of the CIA memos regarding detainee interogation and you think Obama needs a taste of his own medicine? What is your ulterior motive with all this? Seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 So, first, you need to look very long before you find Obama's specific "order to KILL". He authorized the armed forces to take the steps necessary to release the hostage. I can't find anywhere - except on wingnut discussion boards - quoting anyone, including Obama, as issuing an order to kills. Second, chew on this from the grand poobah of conservatism, and tell me how hard you'd push to investigate HIM: "The "madman" leader of Libya, Col. Moammar Gadhafi, had declared that any U.S. plane that came within 200 miles of the coast of Libya, "The Line of Death," would be shot down. International law said a country's border was only 12 miles off the coast. Before the exercises began, in international waters, the Navy asked the president in the Oval Office what the rules of engagement were. "Our pilots are free to shoot back at anyone who fired at them," Reagan answered. "What about 'hot pursuit,' " a Navy admiral asked. "Suppose the Libyan planes shoot at ours and then flee back into Libyan territory. Do you authorize us to follow them?" "You can follow them back into their own damn hangars if you have to!" Reagan responded." Now, obviously different situations but these guys were armed, and threatening American life. The current President empowered the military. Unfortunately, they had to act. Fortunately, they were empowered to do so, which protects THEM. You people screaming for an investigation of the President are daring to impugn our military personnel, to with the US Navy? How dare you. The President trusted them to do the right thing, and they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 And what is more reasonable than asking the President of the United States to fully account for his decision to authorize US snipers to kill people? What's more important than life-and-death decisions? Ever stop to consider that you might be a lone wacko with a silly idea here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PearlHowardman Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Secondly, the POTUS has the right to authorize the use of deadly force if American lives are in danger and military commanders have the right to carry out the order if, like those ship captains who have the right to kill pirates, they deem it necessary. If you had seen that pirate with the AK-47 pointed at the back of a US hostage's head, what would you do? I completely agree. But what I want to know, for the umpteenth time, is what happened before the Pirate had a AK-47 pointed at the US hostage. The pirates wanted something in exchange for the freedom of the ship crew. What did they want? Was it offered to them? WHAT NON-VIOLENT SOLUTIONS WERE EXPLORED BEFORE THE US SNIPERS KILLED THE SOMALI PIRATES?????????????????? WHAT THE 'F' DO YOU FIND SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND????????????????????????????????????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PearlHowardman Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 You people screaming for an investigation of the President are daring to impugn our military personnel, to with the US Navy? How dare you. The President trusted them to do the right thing, and they did. The whole situation lasted FOUR days and the US military was actively engaged the whole time! That's a LONG time. What was the White House doing for those four days in order to ensure a peaceful outcome? Are Somali pirates that difficult to please or fool? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PearlHowardman Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Ever stop to consider that you might be a lone wacko with a silly idea here? Here, yes. Elsewhere, other people are looking into this. It's pretty interesting to watch it develop! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Here, yes. Elsewhere, other people are looking into this. It's pretty interesting to watch it develop! At least as interesting as watching grass grow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 It's more than just Obama's waterboarding/torture hypocrisy. It should be automatic that Congress investigate ANY US President who authorizes the killing of people. Well then I'll look forward to the Bush/Cheney investigation for all those dead Iraqis and US soldiers over a trumped-up war. And don't tell me that Bush didn't think people would actually DIE in his war. Even HE isn't that stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 I completely agree. But what I want to know, for the umpteenth time, is what happened before the Pirate had a AK-47 pointed at the US hostage. The pirates wanted something in exchange for the freedom of the ship crew. What did they want? Was it offered to them? WHAT NON-VIOLENT SOLUTIONS WERE EXPLORED BEFORE THE US SNIPERS KILLED THE SOMALI PIRATES?????????????????? WHAT THE 'F' DO YOU FIND SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND????????????????????????????????????????? Before, or after, the Captain jumped into the sea to try to escape? Before, or after, the Navy provided food and water to the 3 pirates and hostage? Before, or after, the Navy convinced the pirates to allow a tow rope be attached? Before, or after, the Navy quite cunningly shortened that rope, bit by bit, pulling the lifeboat closer to the Bainbridge? The way your peabrain seems to see it, the Navy saw the gun put to Capt Phillips' back, called Pres O and asked permission to fire. Of course that's bull sh--. They asked him for permission to use their best judgement to handle the situation, and he said yes. I wonder once again where you were when Reagan bombed civilians and Bush invaded sovereign nations. Of course, if you want the last word go right ahead. Even your fellow wingnuts aren't defending you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PearlHowardman Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 Before, or after, the Captain jumped into the sea to try to escape? Before, or after, the Navy provided food and water to the 3 pirates and hostage? Before, or after, the Navy convinced the pirates to allow a tow rope be attached? Before, or after, the Navy quite cunningly shortened that rope, bit by bit, pulling the lifeboat closer to the Bainbridge? The way your peabrain seems to see it, the Navy saw the gun put to Capt Phillips' back, called Pres O and asked permission to fire. Of course that's bull sh--. They asked him for permission to use their best judgement to handle the situation, and he said yes. I wonder once again where you were when Reagan bombed civilians and Bush invaded sovereign nations. Of course, if you want the last word go right ahead. Even your fellow wingnuts aren't defending you. You just don't want to understand! Why do other countries and NATO seem to resolve these situations peacefully most of the time? Why did the US have military snipers involved when NO other country and NATO do this? Why was the US Navy involved in the first place? What was the White House actually doing for FOUR days? What did the TEENAGE Somali pirates want? Why wasn't it given to them? WHY DID THIS LAST FOUR DAYS? Bottom Line: You CAN NOT tell me that there was NO way to have a peaceful outcome to this situation. President Obama got the result he bargained for. Three TEENAGE Somali pirates dead and absolutely NO investigation as to why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PearlHowardman Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 ...They asked him for permission to use their best judgement to handle the situation, and he said yes. For the 10th time - WE DON'T KNOW THAT! Wouldn't President Obama, a man who is so disgusted with the waterboarding treatment of US held terrorists, a man who wants to release classified terrorist information, want to FULLY disclose ALL the details of how these TEENAGE Somali pirates got their heads blown off by US Navy snipers? Doesn't he want to tell us what he was doing for FOUR days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 Three TEENAGE Somali pirates dead and absolutely NO investigation as to why. Because they're criminals and they hijacked a ship under the America flag and they had it coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 Three TEENAGE Somali pirates dead and absolutely NO investigation as to why. Three teenage black kids killed by gunfire in Compton won't draw much interest either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts