In 2011. On Terror.
An elusive enemy. The only way to defeat Terror is to track him to the arctic Canadian cave he shares with Tooth Decay.
Obama says “War is over” and basically that’s it.
I don’t know, but then it’s be against humanitarian law and fully on Obama’s lap.
Iraq Oct 16, 2002
Afghanistan, other nations , and groups Sept 18, 2001
Such is my burden.
Can? Sure.
Unless specifically expelled I’d be surprised that they can refuse entrance, but maybe the prisoner prefers G’mo than Riyad.
He needs the AUMF to fight the war on terror. Today. 12 years after it was passed. He’s going to be killing terrorists, related to AUMF authority, until his term is up. The speech would make you think he’s against “Bush’s global endless” wars, that he is actively perpetuating. He must be for this war because he continues to fight it - in all aspects it was previously fought. He doesn’t have to (specifically not the drone strikes in Yemen).
That’s what I meant. If that’s what you understood and disagree, then I apologize for repeating myself.
There is a current example in the news. Currently mainly on the BBC as it broke this morning, but I will put up a cite.
Previously UK forces had been handing arrested Afghanis over to the legal authorities in Afghanistan. A group of Human Rights Lawyers stopped this vis=a a High Court injunction that stopped the Army (and the Government) from doing so as this put them at risk of torture or killing. The Army only has the right to detain for 96 hours without disposal but has chosen to detain nearly a hundred Afghanis for months in what is being v=called a Mini Gitmo in Camp Bastion, the British Army Camp there. The group of solicitors has just filed for a further injunction against the government to force them to release these prisoners or ensure their safety within the Afghani Justice system.
That’s the way to do it. Rule of Law, no language bending, no exceptions, the government and the army must follow the law without exception.
So even when not on UK soil, a concentration camp is illegal.
Again: he doesn’t control when Congress passes a law changing the AUMF. They could do that next week if they were interested.
If he’s calling for bringing an end to this war, he’s not for endless war, now is he? The gist of what he’s saying is that the job is almost done and it’s time to start looking at counterterrorism in a different way. That doesn’t mean he’s obliged to stop doing everything immediately if he thinks it works. I think you’re assuming he denounced everything he’s been doing since becoming president, or tried to give the impression he was doing so. He didn’t do that.
(I bolded part of your post).
I understand what he’s saying. I understand what he’s doing. I suppose this is a true case of actions vs words. If he fights the war for both of his full terms, I’m going to assume he’s for it - regardless of what he says.
For example, here’s an exchange between Sen. Graham and Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations Michael Sheehan earlier this month:
So unless he stops it, it’s going to continue…because he’s ordering it to continue.
You’re still arguing against something he didn’t say.