SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Former USS Cole commander slams Obama on Guantanamo

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Former USS Cole commander slams Obama on Guantanamo (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=148008)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike

Quote:

Fear is a natural response to perceived threats, that's true. But there is fear and then there is FEAR.

fear makes you put on a seatbelt, hold your kid's hand in traffic, know how to swim, spend $$$$ in an attempt to fix your economy.....

Putting a word in bold italics doesn't change its premise. Sure, there are different levels of fear. But even terrorism without Gitmo doesn't leave me here, shaken, anymore than an economic collapse does. In fact, the economy directly impacts far more people than terrorism.

Gitmo isn't any more fear-driven than anything else we do.

Quote:

FEAR makes you willing give away your rights(and your neighbor's),

This is another liberal mischaracterization. What rights have been given away (please cite specifics)?

I'm no more limited in what I do than I was in 1999. Are you and, if so, how?

Quote:

imprison people for life with no evidence

Yet another blanket, broad, and completely incorrect statement liberals design to muddy the issue.

No one has been imprisoned for life, for one thing. In fact, far too many have been released.

Secondly, just because there isn't transparency (meaning, YOU can't see the evidence), doesn't mean that said proof does not exist.

It's odd how people how so much faith in our over-crowded, ideological judiciary but have no faith whatsoever in our comparatively efficient military.

Quote:

use torture

Why does it bother people that we'd torture someone for information useful in stopping their overall goal of destroying us?

This isn't fear (or fear) ... this is pragmatic. Torture a few guys who hate us to potentially save 1000s of our own people.

How are our rights in any way compromised by this? Furthermore, doesn't the Constitution SPECIFICALLY allow for the providing "for the common defense"? In fact, Article 1 Section 9 of our Constitution (the document that gives us these rights) provides for the suspension of Habeas Corpus for public safety.

Quote:

betray the very ideals your country supposedly stood for, do things your great, great, great, grandchildren will be puzzeled and horrified by....

Again, this is a typical grand statement low on substance.

There's a document explaining what your country stands for - it's called the Constitution and applies to citizens of the United States. I'd be interested in hearing some actual cases of US citizens losing any rights...

Quote:

If as Americans, by being Americans, it means we have to fight the war on terror with one arm and both legs tied behind our backs, so be it.

The hell with that. That's silly. Even if we HAVE to slightly ammend our way of life (which we don't), why not just do that instead of risking its out-and-out destruction?

In any case, this is a typical case of liberals picking one liberty over the next. Every American has a RIGHT to be safe from external enemies. You're choosing a non-existant right to comfort for our external enemies over what is actually in the Constitution.

Quote:

Better that, than to do things that make people think we forgot who we are.

Gitmo is one of those things....

Sorry if you've forgotten who we are. I haven't.

We have a clear document describing who we are. It's the Constitution. If you've forgotten what defines us, I recommend reading it carefully.

Well, I guess we just disagree on what we're willing to do about Gitmo. I get it now.:yeah:

Quote:

Originally Posted by AntEater

As the commanding officer, it is his fault.

Oh, I forgot, when a military screwup happens during a democratic administration, it is the administration's fault, if it happens during a republican administration, it is the fault of a misguided individual.
Lebanon 82 was somehow not pinned on Reagan despite ugly micromanagement from the white house down to target selection and flight altitudes, while the "Black Hawk Down" fiasco was Clinton's fault despite the fact that he left the military details totally up to the professionals.

:P

Nice bit of propaganda you got there AntEater, except that in reality the JAG investigation positively cleared Captain Lippold of any fault, wrongdoing or negligence so tell me again why you figure he's a "military dud" and that he should be compared to a deliberate wrong doer like Oliver North?

Propaganda?
Nope, just wondering about double standards.
Why should I make propaganda, I'm an outside observer of the whole US political mudslinging contest.
I still wonder wether Capt. Lippold is related to the most disastrous date I ever had... ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by AntEater

If you are really interested in finding out the truth instead of besmirching a good mans name look up the rules of engagement the administration imposed on the USS Cole.

I believe that they had restrictive rules of engagement, but I doubt they were restricted by the Clinton administration.
Usually, a warship in a foreign port is a diplomatic guest. The 21 gun salute comes from emptying your guns before entering the port of call.
That means, traditionally you are not to shoot up anyone in a friendly port.
Security for foreign vessels is up to the host nation.
Security measures of the ship itself are limited to onboard security.
Yemen failed to provide that security, obviously.
That these ancient rules of friendly port visits are not up to the modern threat of terrorism is another thing, but they're no invention of the Clinton administration.
I suppose those rules actually haven't been changed at all, only modified so that seperate agreements are done with risky ports, or that US navy warships do not call at such ports at all, if necessary, or stay at anchor on the roadstead, where they can shoot up what they want.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AntEater

I believe that they had restrictive rules of engagement, but I doubt they were restricted by the Clinton administration.

You doubt wrong then because rules of engagement are indeed set by the Administration, but my main objection was that you called the captain of the Cole a "military dud" and attempted to put him in the same class as a North who deliberately broke the law just because he has an opinion that you didn't like. Don't you think that was unjustified?

I read:
http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@lis.../msg54740.html
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-6840692.html:

Quote:

Even if the sentries had recognized the threat from a small boat approaching the guided missile destroyer in a Yemeni harbor on Oct. 12, their "rules of engagement" would have prevented them from firing without first obtaining permission from the Cole's captain or another officer, the crew members said.

And also:
http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@lis.../msg54740.html

Quote:

The rules of engagement aboard a U.S. warship are set by its captain following Navy guidelines.

In other words, the final arbiter of all this is the Captain. He set a RoE that actually allowed for shooting, but with an officer's permission, which would hardly have been unreasonably restrictive, even in a full blown war situation. But ... where was the officer?
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/61061.html

Quote:

Lippold's own pronouncements in the case are ironic. A Navy inquiry questioned whether Lippold had taken appropriate measures to prevent an attack on the vessel. No one was in the ship's command center when the suicide boat rammed into the Cole's side, there were no lookouts on deck, and no planning had been undertaken for such an eventuality. Lippold, however, was not disciplined and was allowed to keep his command.

According to this, can you really honestly say he is innocent? That he did do everything possible to avoid it all?
And don't whine about the bureaucracies or Clinton. The aversion in Navies the world over to Captains who get their ships damaged in anything other than (perhaps) war is infamous. There are few actions that will harm your career more than letting your ship get hurt while it is in your charge. Look at Rogers and Vincennes. One whole airliner later he still gets a medal. Regardless of your views on the morality of all this, it is NOT difficult to see which side the Navy says you should err on.
Besides, if he's really such a moral person, he won't be saying what amounts to "F*ck human rights".

MOSTLY INNOCENT? Are you kidding me?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

Lippold, however, was not disciplined and was allowed to keep his command.

That says it all really. If he was half as guilty as your links claim he is that would not have been the case.

Quote:

Besides, if he's really such a moral person, he won't be saying what amounts to "F*ck human rights".

That's not what he said at all.

Quote:

The rules of engagement aboard a U.S. warship are set by its captain following Navy guidelines.

This is double-speak. Why not just say the RoE are set by Navy guidelines? I'm guessing that an agenda is involved...