al-Awlaki's assassination: I call BULLSHIT and so should every thinking person.

[BeHereNow]

Let's forget that this sets a dangerous precedent.

Let's put on our critical thinking hats for a moment and ask this question:

If this man, al-Awlaki and his associate Samir Khan, were so instrumental in
external operations:

- "for Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula,"
AND
- "in planning and directing attempts to murder Americans."

Wouldn't he be more valuable alive? I mean apparently he had
a great deal of knowledge about planned attacks on Americans.
Wouldn't it be more beneficial to take him into custody and
interrogate him?
How has killing someone with insider knowledge about attacks
helped prevent such attacks?

Any intelligent answers?

Seriously, I want to know how assassinating someone who could
reveal a great deal makes sense.
Give me your logic on this one.
Not just, well he was a bad man and they had evidence that he was.
IF they had evidence, I would think they would want to find out
what he knew before they just killed him.
Some thing does not make sense here.
BHN

"WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama declared the killing of a fiery American-born cleric in Yemen a "major blow" to al-Qaida's most dangerous affiliate, and vowed a vigorous U.S. campaign to prevent the terror network and its partners from finding a haven anywhere in the world.

Anwar al-Awlaki, and a second American, Samir Khan, were killed by a joint CIA-U.S. military air strike on their convoy in Yemen early on Friday, U.S. officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss classified matters. Both men played key roles in inspiring attacks against the U.S., and their killings are a devastating double blow to al-Qaida's most dangerous franchise.

Seeking to justify the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen, Obama called al-Awlaki "the leader of external operations for Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula," and outlined al-Awlaki's involvement in planning and directing attempts to murder Americans."

[JuniperLea]

1. If you aren't surfing, you never really did...

I'm sorry, but this late to the party outrage is really making people look silly. Honestly! Since when has the president or the FBI been held accountable for this shit?

I call bullshit on all the outrage. Quite frankly I'm disgusted by it. If people truly cared about it, there would have always been outrage! Oh, I see, it conveniently works within the "program."

I still think it is seriously weak... and seriously fucked up to start using this shit now!

If you haven't been screaming about it until now, you're a fucking poser and you should be ashamed of yourself.

[JackRiddler]

5. What is your problem? Plenty of people have been outraged all along...

and you have no idea if the OP wasn't one of them. And if more people wise up and join the outraged, so much the better. You don't berate the latecomers, you welcome them and make a movement. (Obviously this applies generally.) Your attitude to this is extraordinarily un-constructive.

[JuniperLea]

12. Bullshit

I'm outraged at the outrage grifters... if this action was bad enough that 30% of DU is about it, it would have been 30% of DU all along. Don't give me that crap.

I'm disgusted because it's being used... fuck this shit. It's just another way to shit on Obama.

[uppityperson]

15. " It's just another way to shit on Obama. " +1 nt

[BeHereNow]

17. The question has NOTHING to do with Obama.

Answer the question please. stay on topic.

I asked- why kill someone who might provide extensive knowledge
that might prevent future attacks?

That is the topic of the thread.
Thanks for not trying to turn it into something else.

BHN

[uppityperson]

23. If "NOTHING to do with Obama", why did you put him in the OP?

I don't have insider knowledge of why this happened and cannot read brains.

[BeHereNow]

27. I copied and pasted the story from LBN-

However, my OP does not address Obama.

I want to know the logic of killing a potential information source
that could prevent future attacks.

FYI- I do not believe for one minute Obama ordered the assassination
either- he did what he was told to do and made the statement about it
that he was given to read by who ever did order the hit.
BHN

[uppityperson]

28. I don't know. I don't have access to that information.

[BeHereNow]

32. Well neither do I, but I think it is a reasonable question to ask.

And it is a question that deserves an answer
given the serious nature of many aspects of
the situation.

BHN

[uppityperson]

36. I see it as a reasonable question. I don't think "I call BULLSHIT and so should every thinking perso

"I call BULLSHIT and so should every thinking person." is the way to get that point across. Good luck.

[Sheepshank]

72. really?...every operative caught every time, gives up information...this is your reality?

I don't remember this call from you when Bin Laden was killed.

[TheManInTheMac]

108. How does it have nothing to do with Obama.

Who the hell do you think ordered the assassination? Only the President can order that.

Personally, I support him for it. The President can't be nambey-pambey with terrorists. Yeah, that level of power can be scary in the wrong hands (as recent history proves), but Obama used it responsibly, and the world is safer because of it.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BeHereNow]

16. You have yet to respond with an answer to the question.

Simply answer- with out emotion, if that is possible for you today,
Why kill someone who could provide knowledge about potential attacks?

This is a perfectly logical question and has nothing to do with Obama.

BHN

[JuniperLea]

22. Simple answer...

If you can understand that today... but thanks for the extra crispy bucket of condescention... hope it made you feel reaaaaaal good.

I'm against killing anyone for any reason. But I'm also against using this bullshit meme now, at this moment, by so many opportunists. It makes me sick. All of a sudden it's important to so many.

[BeHereNow]

25. Fail. You have not answered the question.

Try again.
BHN

[xocet]

I'm outraged that you're outraged at those who are outraged....

So...now you can be outraged at my outrage for your outrage which is directed at those who are outraged, since you like to display your outrage so redundantly from thread to thread.

[H2O Man]

24. Outrageous!

[BeHereNow]

26. I am outraged that with all this outrage...

Very few have answered the original question.
BHN

[xocet]

44. Yes, the logical answer is to collect the high-value intelligence from such a high-value target...

But in this thread the order of the day is:

Support President Obama without Reservation - DoublePlusGood

Support Rule of Law - DoublePlusUnGood.

[bhikkhu]

53. "collect the high value intelligence"...

It sounds so easy - just go and arrest him, do a little "good cop/bad cop, and he'll spill the beans on the whole operation. How well that worked in the bush years...

I think its the military that makes the decisions, or weighs the cost/benefit of the thing. From the sounds of it, he traveled in a heavily armed convoy, which in the best of circumstances would have wound up a big operation, in which a bunch of people were likely to get killed, most likely including the guy we were after. The airstrike might not have been the most humane or just alternative, but that's the job and it was probably the safest. And its hard to second guess the guys who have to do it.

[sad sally]

85. Selective amnesia - hmmm, if a President Bush pulled such crap

the howling would be deafening? Will the following be President Obama's next drone target?

by 2013, the FAA expects to have formulated new rules that would allow police across the country to routinely fly lightweight, unarmed drones up to 400 feet above the ground - high enough for them to be largely invisible eyes in the sky.

Such technology could allow police to record the activities of the public below with high-resolution, infrared and thermal-imaging cameras.

One manufacturer already advertises one of its small systems as ideal for "urban monitoring." The military, often a first user of technologies that migrate to civilian life, is about to deploy a system in Afghanistan that will be able to scan an area the size of a small town. And the most sophisticated robotics use artificial intelligence to seek out and record certain kinds of suspicious activity.

But when drones come to perch in numbers over American communities, they will drive fresh debates about the boundaries of privacy. The sheer power of some of the cameras that can be mounted on them is likely to bring fresh search-and-seizure cases before the courts, and concern about the technology's potential misuse could unsettle the public.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/22/AR2011012204111.html?du

[xocet]

89. I believe that you have misunderstood my point....

The implication is that the guy was not so important: see the question in the OP. So, rule of law is throw out the window for next to nothing.

[JackRiddler]

83. I should have guessed it would once again be a fixation on Obama, per se...

even as the last institutions of the former republic are dismantled. Pathetic.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

13. Good lord that is nasty. eom

[frylock]

31. you live in a bubble

[Capitalocracy]

45. Weakest argument ever.

Many of us have been speaking out against this ever since they first came up with the list of kill targets, and ever since they first started taking away our rights after 9-11.

[pa28]

103. Sometimes I breathe into a paper bag after hyperventilating. n/t

[Harmony Blue]

2. Apparently he was in the U.S.

and was allowed to leave with no problem. So, the ball is in the U.S. administration's court to explain why they would let such a dangerous individual leave the country if he was a threat to national security.

[BeHereNow]

9. My point exactly. Why was he not detained and interrogated?

If they knew who he was and what he was involved in,
why not arrest him?
Why allow him to leave the country?
What is the REAL story cause I'm not not buying this one.
BHN

[Auntie Bush]

52. What makes you think we had an opportunity to detain or arrest him?

If we had...what would we do water board him 200 times? That would go over well! I'm personally relieved the SOB is gone forever.

[BeHereNow]

54. Read the rest of the thread and we can discuss it.

Thanks.
BHN

[msanthrope]

59. He left in 2002 nt. Should we have preemptively arrested him?

[msanthrope]

61. He left in 2002. Can you name a reason we should have detained him, then? nt

[Schema Thing]

3. Could you give the President some of your magic "take him alive" fairy dust, please?

Thanks so much for your service.

[Throd]

10. Obama could have shot the gun from his hand and then Biden tackles him.

[Schema Thing]

19. Right? Even Ronny Raygun would have afforded him that favor.

...and looked smart in a western shirt while he did it.


I'm just not sure Obama is up to this job.

[BeHereNow]

30. Trust me- he could have been taken into custody at anytime.

He was IN the US.
They knew about him then.

There was never any intention of apprehending him.
WHY?

BHN

[bhikkhu]

56. The simple explanation is that he hadn't done anything very wrong

...until he was back in the ME. At which point he became much more radicalized and dangerous. I remember hearing about him when he was put on "the list" originally, and he had many defenders here (in the US), and people who vouched for his character. That has certainly not been the case in the last couple of years.

[BeHereNow]

58. Sorry, I don't buy that.

He was flown out of the country after 9-11.
They have know of his nefarious activities for years.
BHN
See post #51 by Sabrina1

[bhikkhu]

69. Go back and read about how he left the country

They were trying to get him on Social Security fraud, as he had listed some wrong information, but it was past the statute of limitations. The whole thing was back and forth in the news, if you were up on things then. At the time, I recall reading testimonials of people who knew him as a decent friend, a good neighbor, a simple Muslim cleric who had gotten tangled up in the 9/11 only circumstantially, and the victim of fear-mongering. At the time, I was glad that he was able to leave for the UK, where things weren't so crazy.

What he did when he got to Yemen in 2004 is a whole different story, however. You can always argue "we should have known", but I don't think anything in 2002 predicted what he did later. The same as all people, we can change as we go through life, we can develop our thinking in one direction or other, we can make choices that determine who we are, and we can wind up with consequences we may or may not have fully accepted in advance.

[Schema Thing]

74. Awesome! Please forward a vial of that Hind-sight Dust to the POTUS, ASAP!

We can't afford to have anymore of these situations!

[Lucinda]

4. I agree... questioning these people makes much more sense than assignation.

And I felt the same way when Bin Laden was killed.

[BeHereNow]

20. Bingo on Bin Laden.

Same question applies.
BHN

[treestar]

6. Is there a reasonable argument that this man is not

a member of Al Qaeda?

[Harmony Blue]

11. Where is the evidence?

That is the problem I think, which why I suspect the U.S. let him leave the country because the evidence they had wouldn't hold up in a court of law.

[BeHereNow]

21. Not the question.

I am specifically focusing on one question.
I want to know the logic of killing someone who
might provide information that could prevent more attacks.
BHN

[JNinWB]

37. First you would have to capture him.

How would you suggest capturing this terrorist?

I have been reading these Awlaki threads and have seen NO suggestions for capturing him and bringing him to justice.

Due process is preferred, but first you need to get him.

[BeHereNow]

39. He was right here- in the United States.

He boarded a plane- have you gone through airport security lately?
Why didn't they arrest him at the airport?
BHN

[Harmony Blue]

47. Most people are not aware of this

because the MSM is not focusing on that part of the story.

[bhikkhu]

66. He left in 2002. He was "watched", but not considered a threat.

I remember reading some of the controversy at the time, and there was some debate over whether he was just a cleric who was being targeted unfairly for having been at the same mosques as some known terrorists. He hadn't, at that point, been on record for anything worse than general criticism of US Middle East policy, as I recall.

[ixion]

7. exactly. I join you in calling BS. k/r

[Taverner]

8. "Dangerous Precedent" is my BIGGEST worry

[BeHereNow]

33. Yes, that alone is a whole other thread...

Be my guest, because I have thoughts on how it
relates to my question, to which people seem to have no
actual or thoughtful answers.
I would certainly join any discussion you might
start on the precedent aspect.
BHN

[StarsInHerHair]

18. truth serum + ecstasy would work wonders far more effective than torture

which just satisfies sadists & is counter-productive

[Major Hogwash]

29. Geez, all we have to do is ask them some questions nicely, and they'll tell us everything we want to

know. Because no one would ever turn down our offer of cookies and milk after the questioning session is over.

[Amonester]

34. Yep. That's why some would have no problem sending mothers

and fathers into harms way to 'get that (other) braggin murderous mofo alive' before he would 'jump the shark' on little babies...

Because he's sick inside his hamburger-steak of a brain...

[Warpy]

35. And your alternative is?

[BeHereNow]

38. Well, I think I made that clear in my OP. Arrest and interrogate.

That would make more sense to me, in that it
might have prevented future attacks.

He was here, on US soil.
He could have easily been apprehended right here.

If I were trying to prevent future attacks, I would certainly
want to find out what he knew.

BHN

[Warpy]

40. And how are you going to do that?

Are you going to start another preemptive war because the Yemeni government is simply not capable of going after these guys? Are you prepared to wage another endless war of occupation?

Are you going to go in to that part of Yemen with guns blazing to extract him? How many Yemenis are you planning to kill to get him?

Or are you willing to leave him where he is, planning the murders of people around the globe?

There aren't many alternatives here and they are all unattractive.

[BeHereNow]

41. He was HERE, in the US!

While we were taking off our shoes, being groped and all that
flying entails these days, in the name of security, he, allegedly
a known terrorist, hopped on a plane- how did that happen?
BHN

[Warpy]

42. And bin Laden was once a cute little baby, cooing in his crib.

[BeHereNow]

43. What a silly response. When you want to have a discussion

let me know-
BHN

[obliviously]

48. Dude, I mean like your like serious

Wow man!

[Warpy]

46. Give me a silly response, get one in return, that's how it works.

You have utterly failed to address any salient points in any post.

Goodbye.

[BeHereNow]

49. "Salient points?" Where. Show me.

Please?
BHN

[Harmony Blue]

50. The man left this country as an adult

not as a child.

[Schema Thing]

80. in 2002. The poster's sarcasm was appropriate.

[bhikkhu]

63. He left in 2002. There wasn't really anything on him then.

There was some controversy, as he was a "cleric" who had been critical of the US, and who had spoken at mosques that some of the 9/11 guys went to, and the Fort Hood shooter, but it was generally considered to be circumstantial. He was "watched", but at that time not considered much of a threat. Once in Yemen he behaved much worse.

[Harmony Blue]

78. They let him go because they had flimsy evidence then

and still do to this day most likely wouldn't pass the mustard in a court of law. According to one poster. he was in Yemenese custody at one point, so why wasn't he brought to the U.S. then?

[sabrina 1]

81. 'Contreversy'? He was known by the FBI in 2001 to have been in

contact with two of the hi-jackers and suspected by them of 'having knowledge of 9/11 before it happened'. Yet, he was able to leave the country in 2002 when airline security was at its height and many people with far less reason to be held, were rounded up and kept for years.

Despite the FBI's knowledge of his ties to the 9/11 hi-jackers, he was invited to dinner at the Pentagon. Do you know of anyone from back then when the country was going crazy and anyone who even looked suspicious was being rounded up, who the FBI knew had actual ties to the hi-jackers, was invited to the Pentagon for dinner?

[bhikkhu]

99. They serve dinner at the pentagon?

I hadn't heard that one, so I looked it up.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322397/Al-Qaedas-Anwar-Al-Awlaki-invited-Pentagon-lunch-9-11-attacks.html

Apparently he got an invite as a moderate cleric, a US citizen, and a good speaker, with broad connections to the US Muslim community. The DOD was reaching out to the community in general at the time, at least making an effort...but that fits in with how I remember things.

I don't get the whole idea of secrecy and privilege - like he was in on something, then spirited out of the country, then assassinated because he knew too much? It seems more likely that he was invited to talk about the Muslim community in 2002 when the pentagon was highly interested, that he left the US on his own dime when things were going sour and he had the opportunity, and he was killed years later because he became highly involved in terrorist plots in Yemen, and the armed convoy he traveled with would have made it difficult to arrest him.

[sabrina 1]

104. The FBI knew he knew two of the hi-jackers and that 'he may have

known about 9/11 before it happened' when he was invited to the Pentagon. Do you think that at that time, in that atmosphere when anyone who even looked Muslim, let alone knew the 9/11 hi-jackers, was rounded up and disappeared into detention centers, yet this guy despite these connections and the FBI's suspicions of him, was invited to the Pentagon of all places? Then with apparently no problems, he leaves the country at a time when many ordinary Americans, such as writers eg, were on no-fly lists?

I would like to know of anyone else suspected of knowing about 9/11 before it happened who was invited to the Pentagon.

[JackRiddler]

110. To answer your question: Every day, at dinner time, without fail.

[msanthrope]

64. He was here last, in 2002. Should we not clean up Bush's mistakes? nt

[Sheepshank]

77. so what?

You keep harping on this as if it should have made a difference to the current play. The US missed an opportunity...oh damn too bad. So time to move on and work with the current hand that is being dealt.

[JackRiddler]

84. First of all, you obviously know nothing about the Yemen-US collaboration.

Second, why stop abroad? I think the cops should just start shooting whoever they figure is guilty. Taking them alive is risky! Enough of this rights and Constitutions mumbo jumbo.

[coalition_unwilling]

102. Finally, a DUer who is advocating the modest proposal I put

forward following the extra-judicial execution (read 'hit job') of Osama bin Laden. Taking them alive is not only risky but it is so inefficient and costly. Dispense with trials for everyone and just start executing forthwith. Why stop with felonies, though? Some asshole in a Cadillac Escalade cut me off tonight while I was driving home. I'm thinking my modest proposal should extend to all drivers of land yachts who exhibit assholish driving etiquette. :)

[JackRiddler]

109. Furthermore, you get to kill their inspirations... preachers... manifesto-writers...

screaming louts inciting violence in the media, etc.

[bluestate10]

91. Are you serious?

"Arrest and interrogate". Explain how he was going to be arrested? The right action was taken and not one soldier was lost during the strike.

[sabrina 1]

51. I agree completely. We keep killing off the very people who could

tell us about 9/11 and future terror attacks. Why?

He was known back in 2001 to have been friends with two of the hijackers, yet in spite of that, was invited to the Pentagon for dinner?? Then allowed to fly out of the country in 2002 when everyone else was being put on no fly lists, people like Journalists eg.

Aside from the immorality, and illegality of it, you are correct to ask the questions you are asking.

[BeHereNow]

57. And there in lies the mystery...

I am made fearful by the precedent it sets, but even
more curious as to WHY he was assassinated, especially given
his history and connections.
BHN

[bhikkhu]

67. Read about what he was involved in Yemen, then decide whether to worry.

Perhaps he would have been simply arrested, except for the heavily armed convoy he customarily traveled in.

[Harmony Blue]

60. Absolutely

There is a lot of logical points that do not add up. Post 9/11 the country was on heightened alert in 2002, so this is the most shocking piece of information that has surfaced.

[pipi_k]

55. Interrogate him?

And what information do you suppose he'd be willing to give up?

What promise could he be given in return for information? His freedom? Really?

His life? Yeah, right. If AQ ever found out he gave information, his life would be worth less than shit in prison.

And back to the first question...how to get that information. Waterboarding? Torture?

I don't know if killing him was the right thing to do, but keeping him alive in hopes that he'll give up crucial information is just, well, naive...

IMO.

[polly7]

62. What information were all those renditioned to torture sites around

the world and those who are still being held at Gitmo supposed to be willing to give up?

[Harmony Blue]

65. To answer some of your points:

*Most people when caught tend to talk.

*The promise of a trial.

*AQ has infiltrated the U.S. federal prison, or GITMO really?

*Most people are willing to talk, and torture is actually the worst way to obtain information.

Call me naive if you want, but I believe in the justice system, and that human intelligence gathering requires live targets.

[Sheepshank]

79. And to add to this false premis of capture...

capture is all fine and well if there a 100% chance of that success. Barring a capture, killing is preferable in that it stops the snake from slithering away just one more time to create another US killing episode. Going for the sure thing is always preferable.

The "Might" caputure him, the "might" get info is beyond stupid and naive. Get the known X factor out of the equation and the equation start falling apart.

[bluestate10]

93. Some would have preferred to send him a perfectly formatted question sheet

that he could have answered at his leisure, between bouts of promoting murder of innocent americans. Rather see the bastard die without trial than to read of infants blown to pieces on an airplane while going to visit grandma.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mikekohr]

70. When You Dedicate Your Life To Placing Bombs On Planes Filled With Innocent Men, Women, and Children

you should not be surprized when we fly an un-manned aircraft filled with explosives through your windshield.

[fascisthunter]

71. people have been conditioned to accept terrorists being assassinated

they do not want to understand that justice belongs in a court of law, because when we start making considerations we open up the opportunity to accuse certain innocent folks of being terrorists, and therefore need to assassinate them with no trial or oversight.

How convenient... then the government can accuse political opponents of being terrorists to get rid of them. It's a slippery slope our founding fathers warned us against. Too many meatheads today.

[BeHereNow]

73. I am alarmed. And I feel attacked for asking a logical question.

Wonder how many of our brothers and sisters on DU
would gladly turn Jackboot on us if given the opportunity.
Quite a few methinks.
BHN

[Harmony Blue]

75. Now I understand what Socrates was warning Athenian society about

Biggest problem with our country is how logic, science, and education system is being attacked.

[BeHereNow]

76. +1000...

You just nailed it.
BHN

[defendandprotect]

86. Terrific post -- question needs to be asked over and over again ....

Sadly, those who believe in authoritarianism and violence aren't going to

be bothered about a Constitution --

and those who can be set on fire with FEAR aren't either going to protect it --



"Might makes right" -- though we all know the insanity of violence of that kind of thinking

is proven over and again.


On the other hand, I think the public well understands the threat of a MIC -- certainly Ike

did! -- and the threat of TORTURE -- and as we can see right now in Egypt, Libya etal these

are the ways that citizens are subdued, disempowered by national security states and

special "emergency rules."

TORTURE is one of the primary tools of dictators in keeping their countrymen silenced.

Voilent solutions don't bring satisfaction for long, they simply bring an acceleration of

and more violence!


:hi:

[fascisthunter]

106. DO NOT.... we are emotional beings

sometimes it is harder to see the whole picture when one becomes myopic. I understand your point fully an wanted to give you my support so that you know, you are NOT alone.

[BeHereNow]

112. Good to hear- that I am not alone.

I thought perhaps the board had been abducted
by the Stepford people.
:evilgrin:
BHN

[Harmony Blue]

114. The problem is when people are down

they ride the wave of emotions. We have to break this cycle and return to logical building blocks that made our society in the first place! Any rational person looking at the fact of this situation and the series of events over ten years can see too many inconsistencies.

[BeHereNow]

118. That's the problem- there are far too few rational thinkers.

Some of the statements people are putting out like,
"There was no way to safely extract him" are hysterical
to me and any member of the US Military machine.

I will be very busy selling bridges today-
because if they actually believe that talking point,
they'll buy ANYTHING.

Including my non existent bridges.

Gotta go now and tell some of my Native American friends
that there is a great opportunity here on DU for them to sell
some rez real estate!


BHN

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[defendandprotect]

82. These are people who can't be left standing -- like OBL -- they know too much....

it's a house cleaning ---

Brzezinski is clear on Taliban/Al Qaeda -- US/CIA financed it thru ISI/Pakistan and

used it to "bait the Russians into Afghanistan in hopes of giving them a Vietnam type

experience" -- and we went into Afghanistan 6 months before the Russians came in!


US/CIA financed Taliban/Al Qaeda right up to 9/11 -- and probably beyond.

OBL was a CIA asset and certainly he could not be permitted to testify -- same with

Sadamm Hussein -- once our guy!


And, sadly, according to CIA asset/whistleblower Susan Landauer -- CIA/US was close

to lifting the sanctions on Iraq -- "everyone was a winner!" --

There was only one LOSER -- the MIC!

And Bush/Cheney/PNAC got to live their dream of attacking Iraq -- !!

[BeHereNow]

87. That is the only thing that makes sense. House Cleaning.

I heard an analyst saying that very thing the other night
about Bin Laden.
His case was pretty air tight, I must say
and the interview was the first thing I thought of when
I heard about this assassination.

BHN

[quaker bill]

88. A thinking person begs to differ

While I do not support killing, I can see the logic here. He is more valuable dead.

The point they are making, like it or not, is that there is nowhere to hide. The tribal regions of Pakistan doesn't work, Yemen doesn't work...

This is the point they are making, it is a very brutal point quite intentionally.

The further point is, "do this stuff and you will not be arrested, you will be iced with dispatch, without trial or compassion".

You may not agree with this approach, it is certainly something I am uncomfortable with, but I can understand it. It is written in large bold type, and that is also quite intentional.

Occam's razor applies, there is no need for complicated explanations.

[bluestate10]

90. I call him dead.

And I am joyous. Drones rule. I wouldn't like to have found that even a single american soldier was killed trying to capture that scum.

[McCamy Taylor]

92. What makes an American citizen more important than all the other people we kill?

[EFerrari]

94. Not more important but they may have protections under US law

that other people don't have.

[bluestate10]

95. Innocent children, women and men don't deserve those protections,

or deserve to be protected from those that don't cherish having those protections apply to them? The man GAVE UP his citizenship and spent every waking hour working to kill as many of the people of his place of birth as possible. To hell with him.

[EFerrari]

96. You people never understand that it isn't about him,

it's about us. The same us that kills one civilian out of every four people that die by our drones. To hell with us too, then.

[bluestate10]

97. If a "civilian" is hanging around scum like that killed yesterday.

Good riddance.

[EFerrari]

98. Right. If they happened to be in the building or next door

or across the street, fuck 'em, right?

Disgusting. :puke:

[Harmony Blue]

116. So if a child is near this man

while a drone strike goes off the child should have known better? Really?

[BeHereNow]

100. At no point have I asserted that in this thread- My question

was why would we assassinate a potential information source.
Someone who allegedly had knowledge of potential future attacks.

The fact that he was an American is a different topic entirely- I would be
asking the question no matter what country the target was a citizen of.

BHN

[defendandprotect]

105. Killing 1 million Muslims in Iraq has no impact -- killing one American does--!!!

[DirkGently]

101. Moreover, we normally don't get to even ask these questions. Most of these killings are secret.

... but it's okay. When has the CIA ever been involved in anything morally questionable?

[Drew Richards]

107. Do you know what a VLE is? If not then maybe you dont know jack...

He was not in a Viable Logistical Extraction location...

This is Yemen NOT downtown Islamabad...

They didn't capture him because obviously they could not safely extract with a minimum level of certainty.

Find something else to be outraged about bub your faux outrage smells funny.

[Melinda]

111. Take your "faux outrage" back to whereever the hell you crawled in from...

You've a lot of nerve coming to DU and calling out a long time member of like BHN. We know where she stands... who the hell are YOU?

[BeHereNow]

115. Hey, thanks for watching my back Melinda!

This thread has become a very good barometer
for me- I had no idea we had so many Fox News Stepford
Children on DU these days.
They'll believe ANYTHING and question NOTHING.

I want to know, WHO benefitted, certainly not
the folks trying to obtain information to prevent
further attacks.

I think it goes higher up the food chain.
It has already been established that at best, this guy
was not even middle management.

No, he was a different threat and my guess
is he knew too much.

Just like Bin Laden.

BHN

[Melinda]

117. This supporting the PTB simply because they profess to share *core* political beliefs is beyond mad!

I see many of the same faces that SCREAMED bloody outrage when BushCo declared the executive branch to have extra-constitutional RIGHTS to target and kill those they deemed "terrists" (sic) now supporting those that they opposed because it's OUR GUY in the WH!!

I don't get it!!

This is the crap that we at DU watched those at FR do for years!! This place has crossed over!

This is not a game people!! Like it or not, Anwar al-Awlaki was a US CITIZEN! Christ on a crutch... remember the outrage over Padilla?!?

Oy, my head hurts. The inconsistency (see hypocrisy) is mind-boggling.

((((BHN))) You keep on keepin' on girl. I think you may be on to something.

[BeHereNow]

113. If that is what you actually believe, I've got a bridge to sell ya!

Please.
I've got friends and loved ones in the US Military.
They would laugh their asses of if they read even half
of the statements like yours on this thread.

You don't know much about our military might, do you?

BHN

[Progressive dog]

119. If he was so innocent, why not just turn himself in?

Governments have a right and a duty to defend their people. Awlaki and Khan chose their allegiance and could not have failed to know the possible consequences.
Maybe, if you had had a chance to talk to him, he would have given up some of his friends so that we could talk to then too.

[BeHereNow]

120. Who said he was innocent? He was a hate spewing propagandist.

As bad as the ones we have here on the MSM and worse.
As to our government's duty to protect us, if he had such
knowledge of plans to attack the US, as they claimed,
if I worked in intelligence, I would be really pissed off right now
at the loss of the opportunity to interrogate him.

And if you start with the meme "There was no way to safely extract him"
I am going to laugh in your face for your ignorance about our military and
offer to sell you a bridge.

BHN