Breaking News: Osama Bin Laden Is Dead! - Part 4

[bell110]

Wow, that title is highly misleading.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Ron Paul on Cleric's Assassination

You can also call that "Ron Paul: Terrorist apologist" or "Ron Paul: Protecting America by letting terrorists roam free"

Our country would have a terrorist attack within three months with that mush-headed idiot in charge.

 

[Arya]

What is wrong with putting them to trial? Wouldn't that be more demoralizing for Al-Qaida? It was certainly demoralizing for Saddam's supporters to see his trial appearance and the whole he was hiding into. It's very hard to make a martyr out of that.

Again, why kill him? What's the point? Don't you think killing the guys gets the radical Arab world even more inflamed?

 

[C. Lee]

Don't you think killing the guys gets the radical Arab world even more inflamed?

Our very existence gets the radical Arab world inflamed.

 

[Arya]

Hey, Santorum! How you doin'!

 

[Arya]

Fox News reported that Al-Awlaki met secretly at the Pentagon within months of 9/11, 4 times after 9/11 and then later was emailing the Ft Hood Shooter, Underwear would-be bomber and the Oregon would-be Christmas Tree Bomber.

Curious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mT5M5_pmPI

EDIT: How do I get a Youtube vid embedded here?

 

[dnno1]

Fox News reported that Al-Awlaki met secretly at the Pentagon within months of 9/11, 4 times after 9/11 and then later was emailing the Ft Hood Shooter, Underwear would-be bomber and the Oregon would-be Christmas Tree Bomber.

Curious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mT5M5_pmPI

EDIT: How do I get a Youtube vid embedded here?

open bracket ([) YT close bracket (]), then place the code after the equals sign in the YouTube link (5mT5M5_pmPI), then open bracket (]), /YT, close bracket (]). It will look like this when you are done:



So apparently Al Alaqi dined with Pentagon officials during the Bush Administration shortly after 9/11. It figures.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

What is wrong with putting them to trial?

It's much easier and safer to kill him than try and capture him (and endanger US troops and infringe on Yemen's sovereignty in the process). Why risk him escaping or taking US lives with him?

 

[dnno1]

What is wrong with putting them to trial? Wouldn't that be more demoralizing for Al-Qaida? It was certainly demoralizing for Saddam's supporters to see his trial appearance and the whole he was hiding into. It's very hard to make a martyr out of that.

Again, why kill him? What's the point? Don't you think killing the guys gets the radical Arab world even more inflamed?

First of all, he was in Yemen, and outside of the jurisdiction of Constitution and laws of the United States. He is not protected by them for that reason. Secondly, the Joint Resolution authorizing the use of Military Force gives the President the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. Because Al Alaqi was known to have spoken to the terrorists who were involved in the attacks on 9/11 prior to the event and he also inspired others to who attacked America afterwards, and that he has refused to turn himself in for questioning as well as refused to return to the U.S., the President has the authority to use appropriate force (in this case deadly) on this person.That's why they killed him and that is the point.

 

[Arya]

It's much easier and safer to kill him than try and capture him (and endanger US troops and infringe on Yemen's sovereignty in the process). Why risk him escaping or taking US lives with him?

Because dropping a bomb from a drone is not sovereignty infringement... right.

I agree with never endangering human lives, I get it. But there is a line. You can apprehend violent heavy-armed criminals all the time in the US and many countries around the world. And somehow, Marines and Seals can't do the job?

I'm afraid the government is making this a regular practice, along with never disclosing evidence of an actual killing (to avoid the its use in radical propaganda). If they can acknowledge the power of images in propaganda, why not show their radical leaders defeated? Why make them martyrs whose last images are delivering big speeches? It seems like a lame excuse to me.

I am actually very sad the US is engaging in the long-time Israeli practice of targeting enemy leaders for assassination (mainly by the Mossad), never putting them through trial, never disclosing the evidence that links them, and later justify those 'strategic' killings by saying they represented and 'existential threat' to America (which is something Israel has always said and C. Lee here is repeating).
I'm sorry, but if the final goal is make friends in the Arabian peninsula, they're botching the job. The more imperialistic and violent they look, the more radicals will have a recruitment day among enraged youths.


BTW, thanks dnno1!

 

[Arya]

First of all, he is in Yemen, and outside of the jurisdiction of Constitution and laws of the United States. He is not protected by them for that reason. Secondly, the Joint Resolution authorizing the use of Military Force gives the President the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. Because Al Alaqi was known to have spoken to the terrorists who were involved in the attacks on 9/11 prior to the event and he also inspired others to who attacked America afterwards, and that he has refused to turn himself in for questioning as well as refused to return to the U.S., the President has the authority to use appropriate force (in this case deadly) on this person.That's why they killed him and that is the point.

Being in Yemen doesn't matter because then there would be extradition laws. Second, if the location of the killing renders US procedural laws nil, then the Military Joint Resolution is irrelevant too. The US would still be breaching foreign sovereignty, something that makes no friends around the world. Second, evidence for the actual involvement of the 911 hijackers and their ties to Al-Qaida was never provided besides Al-Qaida's videos claiming responsibility. On the other hand, there was copious evidence disproving the exact identification of the hijackers. All that should be presented in a court of law.

International extradition laws compel parties to deliver suspects to the country where they perpetrated their criminals so they can be tried according to the laws of that country. I know that depending on countries like Pakistan or Yemen to do that is naive, but I'm sure there are other ways. Why not breach sovereignty to catch them and bring them to the US? It was a difficult task with endangerment of human lives? They do stuff successful operations like that all the time! It seems like and oddly convenient excuse.

 

[dnno1]

Because dropping a bomb from a drone is not sovereignty infringement... right.

Do you hear the Yemeni government complaining? No, because the U.S. already had clearance to use its drones within their borders.

I agree with never endangering human lives, I get it. But there is a line. You can apprehend violent heavy-armed criminals all the time in the US and many countries around the world. And somehow, Marines and Seals can't do the job?

The law says you don't have to. Why endanger more American lives then?

I'm afraid the government is making this a regular practice, along with never disclosing evidence of an actual killing (to avoid the its use in radical propaganda). If they can acknowledge the power of images in propaganda, why not show their radical leaders defeated? Why make them martyrs whose last images are delivering big speeches? It seems like a lame excuse to me.

Once again this happened outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution and laws. Because it can be considered a national security issue, not even the Freedom of Information Act can apply here.

I am actually very sad the US is engaging in the long-time Israeli practice of targeting enemy leaders for assassination (mainly by the Mossad), never putting them through trial, never disclosing the evidence that links them, and later justify those 'strategic' killings by saying they represented and 'existential threat' to America (which is something Israel has always said and C. Lee here is repeating).
I'm sorry, but if the final goal is make friends in the Arabian peninsula, they're botching the job. The more imperialistic and violent they look, the more radicals will have a recruitment day among enraged youths.


BTW, thanks dnno1!

I guess you can blame that on the 107th (Republican) Congress, and you are welcome.

 

[C. Lee]

I am actually very sad the US is engaging in the long-time Israeli practice of targeting enemy leaders for assassination (mainly by the Mossad), never putting them through trial, never disclosing the evidence that links them, and later justify those 'strategic' killings by saying they represented and 'existential threat' to America (which is something Israel has always said and C. Lee here is repeating).

Where did I say any of that?

You posted - Don't you think killing the guys gets the radical Arab world even more inflamed?

And I replied - Our very existence gets the radical Arab world inflamed.

No where did I say if I agreed or disagreed with assassination. No where did I say if I sided with or against Israel or their policies. That was my first post in this thread.

I simply replied with my belief that the very existence of us (meaning western non Islamic people) is reason enough for radical Arabs to be inflamed.

Other than that one statement about what I think radical Arab Islamics think about non Islamic Americans you don't have the slightest idea what my thoughts or opinion on anything dealing with Middle Eastern policies or events are. So kindly do not make up any more opinions about situations and attribute them to me any more.

 

[bell110]

Ron Paul on Cleric's Assassination

Ha, now my post doesn't make sense.

Once again this happened outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution and laws. Because it can be considered a national security issue, not even the Freedom of Information Act can apply here.

Just because an American citizen is not in the US doesn't mean his constitutional rights are null and void. That's the point Paul was making. A dangerous slope, targeting Americans for assassination under the banner of terrorism.

 

[The Squirrel]

How about the banner of being a traitor? Which I think still carries a death sentence.

 

[Superman]

Where did I say any of that?

You posted - Don't you think killing the guys gets the radical Arab world even more inflamed?

And I replied - Our very existence gets the radical Arab world inflamed.

No where did I say if I agreed or disagreed with assassination. No where did I say if I sided with or against Israel or their policies. That was my first post in this thread.

I simply replied with my belief that the very existence of us (meaning western non Islamic people) is reason enough for radical Arabs to be inflamed.

Other than that one statement about what I think radical Arab Islamics think about non Islamic Americans you don't have the slightest idea what my thoughts or opinion on anything dealing with Middle Eastern policies or events are. So kindly do not make up any more opinions about situations and attribute them to me any more.

Sick'em C Lee. t:

 

[Arya]

Where did I say any of that?

You posted - Don't you think killing the guys gets the radical Arab world even more inflamed?

And I replied - Our very existence gets the radical Arab world inflamed.

No where did I say if I agreed or disagreed with assassination. No where did I say if I sided with or against Israel or their policies. That was my first post in this thread.

I simply replied with my belief that the very existence of us (meaning western non Islamic people) is reason enough for radical Arabs to be inflamed.

Other than that one statement about what I think radical Arab Islamics think about non Islamic Americans you don't have the slightest idea what my thoughts or opinion on anything dealing with Middle Eastern policies or events are. So kindly do not make up any more opinions about situations and attribute them to me any more.

My most sincere apologies. Really.

 

[DACrowe]

Ron Paul on Cleric's Assassination

Oh, Ron Paul.

Libertarians and the ACLU liberals standing side-by-side in their outrage. Who knew?

 

[chaseter]

I give Obama props or whomever is doing all of these awesome kills lately.

 

[Arya]

The law says you don't have to. Why endanger more American lives then?

For starters, it would be a long-term mentality. Assassinating terrorist leaders now can lead to an overall strengthening of the organization in the future. More radical leaders emerge with a sense of having to take swift action in order to prove themselves... the action is framed as imperialistic and lawless in order to spread more anti-Americanism and attract more recruits... political opposition frames incumbent governments as US lackeys and, in the case they get to power, strain relations with the US as a form of populism....

All those are possible unintended consequences, all of them endanger American lives domestically and abroad. Adhering to tried and public procedures always leads to more controlled scenarios.

Once again this happened outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution and laws. Because it can be considered a national security issue, not even the Freedom of Information Act can apply here.

A prime example of what is wrong with post-9/11 legislation. Loopholes like that deny due process to cases the government don't want to try publicly. What made Al-Alawki different from Timothy McVeigh?

I guess you can blame that on the 107th (Republican) Congress, and you are welcome.

I do. I'm a 100% against the Patriot Act, the Dept. of Homeland Security and the expanded powers of the executive. I also thank every Congress since then for not repealing those unconstitutional initiatives.

 

[Arya]

I give Obama props or whomever is doing all of these awesome kills lately.

Do you think this is justice?

 

[DACrowe]

What is wrong with putting them to trial? Wouldn't that be more demoralizing for Al-Qaida? It was certainly demoralizing for Saddam's supporters to see his trial appearance and the whole he was hiding into. It's very hard to make a martyr out of that.

Again, why kill him? What's the point? Don't you think killing the guys gets the radical Arab world even more inflamed?

Well why kill any of al-Qaeda by that logic? I think taking out its leadership (as we've taken out two from the original al-Qaeda group in Pakistan and now one from the Peninsula in the last five months) leaves them disorganized and demoralized in the way we are doing it. Large land invasions and occupations of Arab lands are more likely to inspire new recruitments....especially when things like Gitmo and Abu Graihb are going on.

As for al-Awlaki? If we could arrest him on a corner in Albuquerque or have Interpool nab him in London? Fine. But he was traveling around Yemen, a place we cannot easily reach, much less police, playing war against the country. Should we risk American lives in a laborious attempt to arrest what is essentially a wartime enemy....or treat him like any other wartime enemy and sick a drone on him? To put it another way, when Southerners seceded from America, declared war on it by firing on Fort Sumter and then picked up arms to march against it....nobody was asking the Union Army to try to arrest these people and put them on trial for due process of what was essentially treason.

Think about that.

 

[Superman]

Do you think this is justice?

I do, The man declared war on the US and instructed others to attack us and how to do it. He was a traitor and he knew what he was getting into when he did those things.

This is how we should have been fighting terrorism from the start.

 

[chaseter]

Do you think this is justice?

Yes I do. Who cares if he is American born? He is spreading propaganda to attack and kill Americans. That is treason and treason is punishable by death.

You may think that is a little black and white but let me put it in a question to pose to you. Would you rather let him go free because you cannot physically capture him to give a jury trial or would you rather him be dead from a rare chance at a drone strike to stop him from aiding in the killing of Americans?

 

[Arya]

Well why kill any of al-Qaeda by that logic? I think taking out its leadership (as we've taken out two from the original al-Qaeda group in Pakistan and now one from the Peninsula in the last five months) leaves them disorganized and demoralized in the way we are doing it. Large land invasions and occupations of Arab lands are more likely to inspire new recruitments....especially when things like Gitmo and Abu Graihb are going on.

As for al-Awlaki? If we could arrest him on a corner in Albuquerque or have Interpool nab him in London? Fine. But he was traveling around Yemen, a place we cannot easily reach, much less police, playing war against the country. Should we risk American lives in a laborious attempt to arrest what is essentially a wartime enemy....or treat him like any other wartime enemy and sick a drone on him? To put it another way, when Southerners seceded from America, declared war on it by firing on Fort Sumter and then picked up arms to march against it....nobody was asking the Union Army to try to arrest these people and put them on trial for due process of what was essentially treason.

Think about that.

^ You have a point there, but I think it is still too convenient. Many things around Al-Awlaki weren't clear (his actual relationship to the 9/11 hijackers, his alleged invitation to the Pentagon -reported by no less than Fox New) and now it won't ever be clear. I get killing Osama and now Al-Awlaki this way is, to sum it up, more 'surgical'... but the supposed merits of inarticulating Al-Qaida remain to be seen. Osama was not calling the shots of the organization during all the years he was in Pakistan and yet the attack plans were being hatched. When all you do is take out the leaders, you can sit back and see how the cells regroup and new leaders emerge. The most fundamental problems that make them exist and recruit in the first place are not being addressed. Forget Al-Qaida... after the Arab spring, who says we won't have the new Hamas or the new Hezbollah?