Navy SEALs families in danger from leaks?

[Jiro]

I don't understand. Explain how the "conduct" could jeopardize the future missions? We already know a lot of missions in the past. How can we possibly not know if something happened and say, "there was no mission!"

I sure hope no identity is revealed and those who do should be accountable for it.

oh believe me - there are thousands of missions that you never knew. Some of them - you'll never know it for rest of your life unless somebody leaked it. Majority of mission details will be released at future time.

The "conduct" is how they accomplished missions. By exposing their "conduct"... their jobs have gotten harder. or impossible in some case.

 

[Jiro]

You're confusing two issues. First, the identities of undercover people should not be revealed and consequences should exist for doing it. That should have applied to Valerie Plame too but that's a different thread. It someone is "outed" then the government should protect him/her.

Second, a completely different issue, all Americans should not let the terrorists win by giving them power over our lives. The second issue is more about our American attitude. And it has nothing to do with undercover people at all. We all have to adjust to a new reality.

Now that I've clarified that, I must get some rest.

about your second issue... we have been doing it for decades. It's called "We do not negotiate with terrorists" policy.

and we've eliminated Saddam, Osama bin Laden, Taliban, key players of Al Queda, and Somalia pirates. and Libya's next. oh believe me - they know very clearly we have power in the world to get them - anytime, anywhere. But it's not about fear. The reality is.... our heroes' families are at risk... especially their children.

 

[Jiro]

Who's the idiot that released that information? It sounds like a total failure of security. Someone should be held responsible. I think that even embedded journalists with regular military is a bad idea.

There were no embedded journalists in this mission. There was no regular military in this mission either.

I believe Reba's suspicion is right... it's gotta be somebody in Situation Room. or their staff.

 

[kokonut]

I considered this a military operation. OBL was a target of the operation, just a different uniform.

Sorry for the hijacking...:topic:

Yet it is taking out the top leader with specificity and it's pre-meditated. It is still can be classified as an assassination effort. Only this time it was with bullets and not some bunker busting bomb. He was "liquidated." No? He was "neutralized." No? He sleeps with the fishes now.

 

[Jiro]

Yet it is taking out the top leader with specificity and it's pre-meditated. It is still can be classified as an assassination effort. Only this time it was with bullets and not some bunker busting bomb. He was "liquidated." No? He was "neutralized." No? He sleeps with the fishes now.

and your point is....... ?

 

[sallylou]

Until 9/11, most Americans believed that terrorism was something that happened "over there." It was blissful ignorance. Sure, it was wrong but it's what we wanted to believe.

 

[Beowulf]

:roll:

I've had this concern since the beginning. This is all because of Internet. Information flowed fast around the world in seconds. People are hunger for details otherwise people will get furious and doubt/accuse everything. Looks like we have become "pix or it didn't happen" generation.

I groaned when there was just too much details released on daily basis since mission. Obama Administration dropped a ball on this one. A bad one. This is another Valerie Plume mess.

It's not quite the same as the Plume case.
If the White House dropped the ball on this, it appears they recovered it quickly enough.

 

[posts from hell]

and your point is....... ?

I see his point.

 

[Reba]

oh believe me - there are thousands of missions that you never knew. Some of them - you'll never know it for rest of your life unless somebody leaked it. Majority of mission details will be released at future time.

Right-o.

The "conduct" is how they accomplished missions. By exposing their "conduct"... their jobs have gotten harder. or impossible in some case.

Yes, "conduct" in this sense means the doing of a mission. To conduct a mission is to do a mission.

 

[Reba]

Yet it is taking out the top leader with specificity and it's pre-meditated. It is still can be classified as an assassination effort. Only this time it was with bullets and not some bunker busting bomb. He was "liquidated." No? He was "neutralized." No? He sleeps with the fishes now.

This mission was CIA instigated but military conducted. I believe (just my theory) that the CIA could have just as well as sent in a team to conduct the raid. However, diplomatically, that would have riled up the Pakistanis and international Muslims even worse than they are. The CIA killing OBL would definitely be called a political assassination, and bring upon it all kinds of wrath here and abroad. The military killing OBL, can be considered a military action as part of an ongoing war.

 

[saywhatkid]

This mission was CIA instigated but military conducted. I believe (just my theory) that the CIA could have just as well as sent in a team to conduct the raid. However, diplomatically, that would have riled up the Pakistanis and international Muslims even worse than they are. The CIA killing OBL would definitely be called a political assassination, and bring upon it all kinds of wrath here and abroad. The military killing OBL, can be considered a military action as part of an ongoing war.

Thank you.

 

[saywhatkid]

Yet it is taking out the top leader with specificity and it's pre-meditated. It is still can be classified as an assassination effort. Only this time it was with bullets and not some bunker busting bomb. He was "liquidated." No? He was "neutralized." No? He sleeps with the fishes now.

Opinions vary. Considering he was not elected to any office, he ruled no land area or kingdom, and he was basically the top "officer" in an enemy unit, I find it similar to finding the general of a large army unit and attacking his battle headquarters. He was a targeted enemy soldier eliminated by military operation.

I am not pasting a "Re-elect Obama" sticker on my car based on this happening during his term of office. But it was done by military personnel following orders from their commander.

Glad to see you still have the usual disdain for anyone not hard right on the political spectrum. I would not know how to react to any oother version of you.

 

[Reba]

Opinions vary. Considering he was not elected to any office, he ruled no land area or kingdom, and he was basically the top "officer" in an enemy unit, I find it similar to finding the general of a large army unit and attacking his battle headquarters. He was a targeted enemy soldier eliminated by military operation....

Right. He wasn't a political leader in the formal sense but a leader in his people's eyes. The political complication came with him taking up residence in Pakistan, a country with whom we are not at war. Crossing another country's border without permission to conduct a raid is not usually good for diplomatic relations.

Of course, we couldn't ask Pakistan's permission because they either would have refused it or they would have spilled the beans in advance to OBL. Either way, OBL would have won.

 

[Beach girl]

It was one of those cases where it was smarter to ask forgiveness than permission.

 

[KristinaB]

I guess I've been in a cave or something. I didn't even know anything about which Navy SEAL team was there.

Considering that I get most all of my news either here on AD or off FB from our local TV stations. Don't watch TV at all.

 

[DURAY]

CIA personnel are always detailed to the NSC staff for 2-3 years of duty. Thus they identified themselves as from the CIA. Valerie was undercover but she was outed by her husband actually. And many CIA employees worked alongside FSO of the Department of State at embassies overseas. So identification is vague when they meet in DC....

It's not quite the same as the Plume case.
If the White House dropped the ball on this, it appears they recovered it quickly enough.

 

[DURAY]

It was Navy SEAL 6 (Aka DEVGRU). The name of the SEALs assigned to that team are classified. Then they are rotated back to the regular SEAL teams. But when they served on the other 6 SEAL teams, it is not classified. Their names are in the Navy Times when they published the promotion names. Delta Force is classified but most operators previously served as Rangers and Special Forces personnel which are not classified.
I remembered a deaf guy taught Navy SEALs sign language before they went to Vietnam in 1962 to 1972 or earlier.

I guess I've been in a cave or something. I didn't even know anything about which Navy SEAL team was there.

Considering that I get most all of my news either here on AD or off FB from our local TV stations. Don't watch TV at all.

 

[kokonut]

This mission was CIA instigated but military conducted. I believe (just my theory) that the CIA could have just as well as sent in a team to conduct the raid. However, diplomatically, that would have riled up the Pakistanis and international Muslims even worse than they are. The CIA killing OBL would definitely be called a political assassination, and bring upon it all kinds of wrath here and abroad. The military killing OBL, can be considered a military action as part of an ongoing war.

Key words are "can be considered" but then again that's a matter of choosing words here. And I agree. Just as I would agree had we done the same thing with Hitler. I think it comes down to the blurring of the lines here. You said "ongoing war" but did we officially declare war against al Qaeda? I understand where you're going with this. I see it as part and parcel a political assassination coupled our taking the fight over to them for a change.

 

[DURAY]

the assassination EO allowed killing against a head of state wearing a military uniform. Bin landen was the leader of Al Qaeda. Something wrong with killing him??? War with them started on 9/11/01.

Key words are "can be considered" but then again that's a matter of choosing words here. And I agree. Just as I would agree had we done the same thing with Hitler. I think it comes down to the blurring of the lines here. You said "ongoing war" but did we officially declare war against al Qaeda? I understand where you're going with this. I see it as part and parcel a political assassination coupled our taking the fight over to them for a change.

 

[kokonut]

Opinions vary. Considering he was not elected to any office, he ruled no land area or kingdom, and he was basically the top "officer" in an enemy unit, I find it similar to finding the general of a large army unit and attacking his battle headquarters. He was a targeted enemy soldier eliminated by military operation.

I am not pasting a "Re-elect Obama" sticker on my car based on this happening during his term of office. But it was done by military personnel following orders from their commander.

Glad to see you still have the usual disdain for anyone not hard right on the political spectrum. I would not know how to react to any oother version of you.

You have the tendency to focus on me like some bad craw in you rather than sticking with presenting your arguments.

See my response to Reba about the elimination topic. I see it as a gray area.