More good news in the war on terror..

[il Padrino Ute]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/...20113732.shtml

one more down; many more to go.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/...20113732.shtml

one more down; many more to go.

Even people like me who aren't fans of Obama have to admit that he at least seems to enjoy kicking Al Qaeda's ass and he doesn't seem to care where it happens either. The interesting thing about it is that Obama doesn't seem to have an issue hunting these guys down and killing them in countries that either we haven't yet formally invaded or haven't gotten their permission to enter, but finding these guys and waterboarding them for information is somehow way out of bounds.

I'm not complaining mind you, but I find that dichotomy a little strange.

[myboynoah]

Even people like me who aren't fans of Obama have to admit that he at least seems to enjoy kicking Al Qaeda's ass and he doesn't seem to care where it happens either. The interesting thing about it is that Obama doesn't seem to have an issue hunting these guys down and killing them in countries that either we haven't yet formally invaded or haven't gotten their permission to enter, but finding these guys and waterboarding them for information is somehow way out of bounds.

I'm not complaining mind you, but I find that dichotomy a little strange.

At least we have our principles.

[RobinFinderson]

At least we have our principles.

Which now include killing American civilians without a trial.

[falafel]

Which now include killing American civilians without a trial.

What does the fact that they're american citizens have to do with it? These guys are actively at war with America.

[oxcoug]

Even people like me who aren't fans of Obama have to admit that he at least seems to enjoy kicking Al Qaeda's ass and he doesn't seem to care where it happens either. The interesting thing about it is that Obama doesn't seem to have an issue hunting these guys down and killing them in countries that either we haven't yet formally invaded or haven't gotten their permission to enter, but finding these guys and waterboarding them for information is somehow way out of bounds.

I'm not complaining mind you, but I find that dichotomy a little strange.

Oh man it's a totally indefensible disconnect in the "morality" of the left -

Atomizing a dude w/ a hellfire missile or shooting him in the face in front of his kids = OK.

Enhanced interrogation techniques that we use in training our own soldiers and are known to have no lasting physical effects = not only not OK, but a total betrayal of everything the West stands for! (the latter being the actual sort of rhetoric that was used about waterboarding).

I get being opposed to both waterboarding / EITs and also being opposed to drone attacks. There is simply no defensible consistency between opposing targeted EITs for the extraction of life-saving information from known terrorists but supporting drone attacks which routinely inflict civilian casualties or get the wrong guys all together.

[Clark Addison]

Oh man it's a totally indefensible disconnect in the "morality" of the left -

Atomizing a dude w/ a hellfire missile or shooting him in the face in front of his kids = OK.

Enhanced interrogation techniques that we use in training our own soldiers and are known to have no lasting physical effects = not only not OK, but a total betrayal of everything the West stands for! (the latter being the actual sort of rhetoric that was used about waterboarding).

I get being opposed to both waterboarding / EITs and also being opposed to drone attacks. There is simply no defensible consistency between opposing targeted EITs for the extraction of life-saving information from known terrorists but supporting drone attacks which routinely inflict civilian casualties or get the wrong guys all together.

I don't think that's true. In war, there has always been a distinction between how you treat enemy combatants in the field, and how you treat them in your custody. If you accept that this is a war, then I think you can make a reasonable argument that killing people with drones is an acceptable tactic in that war, but that a "higher" standard is needed with captured enemies. It's one thing to use a sniper on the battlefield, it would quite different to bring a sniper into a POW camp and start picking people off.

I'm not saying that I buy what we are doing, I'm just saying that there is logic in the point of view.

[frank ryan]

Obama hasn't been a dove in the war on terror that is for sure

[RobinFinderson]

What does the fact that they're american citizens have to do with it? These guys are actively at war with America.

Have you read about what they haves actually done? Both of them are primarily responsible for inspiring violent acts. This makes them truly evil people, but there is no way that a US criminal court would give them a death sentence. They may be serious criminals, but I haven't read a shred of evidence that they were anything more than cheerleaders for violent jihad. So the government has crossed a line here.

[creekster]

Have you read about what they haves actually done? Both of them are primarily responsible for inspiring violent acts. This makes them truly evil people, but there is no way that a US criminal court would give them a death sentence. They may be serious criminals, but I haven't read a shred of evidence that they were anything more than cheerleaders for violent jihad. So the government has crossed a line here.

What line is that? Is it a constitutional line? a statute? A moral line? What line, exactly, do you mean?

It all depends on how you define war and how you define opposing combatants.

[UtahDan]

Have you read about what they haves actually done? Both of them are primarily responsible for inspiring violent acts. This makes them truly evil people, but there is no way that a US criminal court would give them a death sentence. They may be serious criminals, but I haven't read a shred of evidence that they were anything more than cheerleaders for violent jihad. So the government has crossed a line here.

I think the question is whether they are just talking or whether they are also plotting and planning violence. If the former only, then I agree that is very troubling. But if the latter, they have made themselves the equivalent of a soldier on a battlefield with arms in hand against us, IMO. I will be curious to learn more. Obviously is someone went to the UK and advocated jihad we would not assassinate them. I suspect it was more than just that.

[RobinFinderson]

What line is that? Is it a constitutional line? a statute? A moral line? What line, exactly, do you mean?

It all depends on how you define war and how you define opposing combatants.

It is a line where the US government seeks out, targets and kills specific citizens for their speech without the benefit of a trial to determine the extent to which the speech was criminal.

[creekster]

It is a line where the US government seeks out, targets and kills specific citizens for their speech without the benefit of a trial to determine the extent to which the speech was criminal.

Well if you eliminate all other factors involved except those you state, you might be correct. But as it is much more complex than your oversimplified description, and as his culpable behavior extends much farther, you are wildly incorrect. All just IMO, of course.

[RobinFinderson]

Well if you eliminate all other factors involved except those you state, you might be correct. But as it is much more complex than your oversimplified description, and as his culpable behavior extends much farther, you are wildly incorrect. All just IMO, of course.

I really didn't know much about them, except that I have heard their names in the news. So I've tried to read about them since they were killed, and I haven't seen any evidence of material support. They were definitely in contact with terrorists, and were encouraging terrorist behavior. I'm not saying that these are innocent people, and I'm not upset with their getting whacked. They had it coming. But it seems like government overreach, and that should be a cause of concern.

[old_gregg]

I really didn't know much about them, except that I have heard their names in the news. So I've tried to read about them since they were killed, and I haven't seen any evidence of material support. They were definitely in contact with terrorists, and were encouraging terrorist behavior. I'm not saying that these are innocent people, and I'm not upset with their getting whacked. They had it coming. But it seems like government overreach, and that should be a cause of concern.

al-awlaki had blood on his hands. he was not a cheerleader; a large body of evidence linking him to planning (not just inspiring) several terror plots exists.