Is there really a distinction between arming the "rebels" in Syria to take out Assad

[WestStar]

Last edited Sat Jun 15, 2013, 02:25 PM - Edit history (1)

and sending in a team of snipers or launching a drone attack to acomplish the mission? (To me there is another option which is to mind our own effing business but be that as it may)

Reports are that our government will be spending $50 million a day, money we have to print, to keep 2 ancient tribes from killing each other.

So whether he has been pushed, tricked or suckered into this position or that he really thinks, in his best considered judgment and opinion, that what he is about to implement is the right and proper course of action, why not save the blood, time and money and just "order a hit".

Oh you say. "it's against the law to for Obama to assassinate a foreign leader."

Well, no it isn't...

No standing Federal law criminalizes the assassination of a foreign official outside the boundaries of the United States. In the absence of such a statute, only Executive Order 12333 prohibits the act of state-sponsored killing. This Order, which was drafted in the mid-1970s in the wake of revelations of government involvement in plots to kill several foreign leaders, has been maintained by every administration since President Ford. In recent years, however, there have been several attempts by Congress to override Executive Order 12333. The most recent of these initiatives is H.R. 19, the “Terrorist Elimination Act of 2001,” proposed in January of this year by Representative Barr of Georgia.3 The findings section of this bill states:

Past Presidents have issued Executive orders which severely limit the use of the military when dealing with potential threats against the United States of America, these Executive orders limit the swift, sure, and precise action needed by the United States to protect our national security; present strategy allows the military to bomb large targets hoping to eliminate a terrorist leader, but prevents our country from designing a limited action which would specifically accomplish that purpose .

http://www.bc.edu/dam/files/schools/law/lawreviews/journals/bciclr/26_1/01_TXT.htm

So if the President is really convinced that he is following the proper course of action by eliminating Assad, a simple Executive order would give him the authority to do so.

[GeorgeGist]

1. Ancient tribes quip ...

really puts it in perspective, No?

[Igel]

2. Yes, there is a difference.

It's the difference between having the US Army do something and hiring mercenaries that report to somebody else doing things in your name.

At least in Libya we might have provided the planes, bombs, logistics, supplies, and a lot of other things, but it was formally the French who were in charge of installing the weakling government that has failed, in the course of a year, to consolidate power. Yeah, it led to a bad situation in Mali, but the French, having bought that, also took posession of that problem, as well. Not that we like to think they're related in any way, shape, or form. That would be silly talk.

In Syria we'll be handing weapons to guys that we have a "personal relationship" with. Presumably we've looked into their eyes and saw their souls. Then again, in the last two years numerous "good guys" that worked with the current "good guys" were outed as truly bad guys. One month you're a good freedom fighter, the next month you're caught on video killing a captive and eating his heart. They have to hire a new PR firm for media, esp. social media, contol.