Obama announcement at 10:30 p.m. - Bin Laden Dead

A defendant's rights don't depreciate in relation to the crime.

Of course, I totally buy the argument that the severity of the crime makes it more likely that he was dangerous and had to be killed rather than taken into custody.

But I think that's a different argument than, "He didn't follow the law. Neither do we."

I know that it might seem like splitting hairs and semantics. But I think there's a definite distinction.

 

To strictly follow international law, we would have had to alert Pakistani officials, who very well could have tipped off bi Laden.

So we were going in covert.

And you drag his alive ass out of there and you've got a circus and very well could have international courts wrangling over whether he should be brought back or released because he was taken illegally.

He mad his bed.

 

I do think it's fair to maintain a critical eye toward the handling of information during the Bush years. The eye was clearly taken off the ball during the whole Iraq episode and Tora Bora was a disaster of not following through on intelligence. I think it's fair to conclude (though it's not necessary to conclude) that the Obama team was superior in "keeping its eye on the ball," so to speak and the end result came out of that. There was a quick de-emphasis of Iraq and troop reduction and an emphasis placed on getting Afghanistan to an end game, which I think this moves us closer to.

The intelligence-gathering capability and military capability of the country remained consistent in both administrations. The difference was the execution from the top.

So I can understand why there's no excitement for a "group hug" with the previous administration.

 

Hey, assuming that law was followed (and I assume there is room for legitimate, reasonable mistakes like thinking he was armed when he wasn't), I'm pleased with how things turned out, from a tactical standpoint. I think the person was right who said that the cost/benefit analysis favors him dead rather than alive.

 

Obama's been a damned good president to this point, I think. Not perfect, but damned good. Just a capable guy in charge, as evidenced by getting OBL, which is comforting.

 

Bush was vilified for "torturing" KSM. But, he got a legal ruling from the Justice Department first.

The author of that memo, John Yoo, was criticized for its content and there were calls for him to be criminally prosecuted.

So, who's the Obama administration's John Yoo?

What was the legal argument for the "kill order"?

 

You ever see "The Daily Show" with John Yoo? Stewart thought he was going to corner him, and Yoo just tore him apart. Even the next night, Stewart was practically shell-shocked about the beating he took.

 

I'm not sure I've ever seen a full episode of the Daily Show.

I've seen clips, but I don't think I saw one of Yoo's appearance.

But, the guy is a legal genius, despite what others might say.

 

Here is the legal argument for the kill order:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/warpower/sj23.pdf

 

Well, Cal Berkeley law school, a bastion of right-wing thinking if there ever was one, certainly thinks so. I believe he's a faculty member there now. (Doesn't mean he was right, of course. Richard Posner is a legal genius, too, and, like I said, I disagreed with his book on civil liberties in wartime).

 

So, I guess Yoo's memo was unnecessary then.

 

The argument will be over this language: "all necessary and appropriate force."

So you still need someone from the DOJ to analyze what "necessary" means and how that meshes with the Geneva Conventions, etc.