Seems like a US sanctioned Assassination, at least we get to hear one embellished side of the story proving the killing was justified. Propaganda, hear say and puffery are much more efficient than requiring a jury trial of 12 peers and having to prove a crime beyond any reasonable doubt. They've done a pretty good job of fucking the constitution.
The left demanded that Bush, Cheney, Rove and even attorneys who approved enhanced interrogation of terrorists be prosecuted. They tried to have the attorneys disabarred and nearly succeeded. These men are all afraid to travel internationally for fear they will be arrested in some socialist country and put on trial. Other than a few complaints from the ACLU et al, the left doesn't seem to have a problem with obama's program of drone assassinations, even though there is plenty of collateral damage in most cases, meaning innocent civilians get killed. So slapping a known terrorist around is an outrage, but assassinating an American citizen without judicial process is something to brag about? I must say, I can't get past the inconsistency, but I suppose that's why I could never be a liberal. It is easy to see why we are doing it, but Ron Paul has a point. History teaches us that this sort of thing tends to be a slippery slope. Today it is an al qaeda leader. Tomorrow maybe it's someone who is a global warming "denier", since we all know how liberals feel that is akin to a crime against the planet. This is the same federal government that gave us the outrage known as the TSA, so cut me some slack if I have some trepidation about the wisdom of goiving the president this kind of power.
Please! It's a long way from killing terrorists to global warming denier. You guys just can't find it in you to give the president a shred of credit for anything, ever. My eyes that makes you as bad as the radical leftists who never could see a single good thing Bush did. Far as killing this punk, good! Kill more of them and screw a bunch of collateral damage. Ain't no such thing in my book.
Great Post! This is the big catch 22. If i knew 100% that the guys getting waterboarded, and the guys being assassinated were jihadists who wanted to take down america then i have no problem with it. I would hook them up to a car battery myself if i knew 100% they were planning on killing us. I have no problem with the moral side of the argument of whether or not we should be waterboarding someone, but the theoretical debate presents a brand new problem. As it stands right now it appears that the only guys we have taken down are jihadists so i stand by both the Bush waterboarding, and the Obama assassinations. Though i guess we probably will never know 100% if they screwed up somewhere, because they wouldnt tell us is they did screw up and got the wrong person. Its funny how the liberals who thought Cheney and Bush were the root of all evil based on waterboarding foreigners have no problem with it when Obama simply assassinates a U.S. citizen, it is very telling. If you are arguing based on morality this doesnt make any sense. While i support both waterboarding, and assassinating these jihadists in the event that we know for sure that they are guilty, i guess the argument all comes back to the fact that you can never be 100% when it comes to this. Just watched Sharpton on MSNBC bragging about Obama taking down Al-Awlaki, i find that humorous since he is so big into the ACLU provided they are attacking white male conservatives and their policies. Just so no ne questions where i stand, i fully support Obama and the military jamming a missile right up this Al-Awlaki guys asshole, and i say well done Obama.
I agree with you but fucking liberals took away the proper military tools for that region, carpet bombing, cluster bombs and napalm . What military have left is drones, snipers and Dick Cheney catering service.