A lot of you have described varying degrees of outrage over the killing of Anwar al-Aulaqi.
I understand some of the outrage is a vessel to attack Obama and some of it is justified outrage based on personal belief. I have argued that by our definition of the enemy in this conflict he was very much a justified target. I read a lot about our foreign policy from a variety of sources. A lot of the best things I read come from Foreign Policy Magazine which has a daily push of interesting FP articles. One of which was this Atlantic Piece that is fairly well written and adequately describes the decision process.
How Obama Decides Your Fate If He Thinks You're a Terrorist
And while the article is a good read the main point is the decision matrix. << That is an interactive and provides information required for each step when you click on each box. So I didn't put a picture of it in this thread.
So that is one facet or tidbit of info for this discussion. Additionally:
Last night Rachel Maddow interviewed Jeh Johnson the out going Pentagon Chief Legal Counsel who was responsible for the legalities of the roll out of repealing DADT. That and doing it so as to not affect our military mission or efficacy. I would like to point out that under his guide they built the denial of benefits entirely around DOMA so when it fails to prevent couple from acquiring benefits then it should be an easy jump to domestic partner benefits for service members. SO while that last part is not germane, I want you to understand why I trust this guys opinion.
Her lead in was about POW camps in World War Two and how they weren't actually emptied until MONTHS after the war ended. So with the war on terror being this open ended commitment that apparently has no end, will we have prisoners forever? Well, Jeh Johnson used one of his last few addresses to offer something that has yet to be embraced by anyone who has assumed power in this nation -- that the war on terror will eventually reach a point where we know it is over and we can stop the open ended war commitment and spending.... you can find the clip HERE if you click on the first Jeh Johnson clip... That idea is made ever more complex by an intransigent congress (Read House Republicans) that refuse to allow anything be done with the prisoners while at the same time offering no solution.
So big lead in I know but knowledge is power and all of that. SO my question is this: Being that Obama is against the war efforts but knows we must responsibly end our efforts and must do so in a manner that protects America. Do you think his unpublished work on a decision matrix where it relies primarily on legal avenues is the next obvious step? Where we employ both military might sparingly and legal avenues to continue to defeat terrorist? Finally, will congress ever get a fucking clue and stop hamstringing the normal process of trial or release for prisoners of war?
I personally think this will be the Obama Doctrine once all is said and done. I additionally think if we had a congress intent on something other than simply hamstringing Obama we could then work through these prisoners and remove this apparently never ending blight of holding people indefinitely.
Now I know there will be plenty of we are a police state and Obama is a hatey hater hatey hate and such... but if you would please keep it confined to the questions at hand... and even more so offer discourse on that and possible constructive solutions....