When it comes to the issue of national security, President Obama has proven (once again) that he has been enormously effective in eliminating threats to this nation. In a significant new blow to al-Qaida, U.S. airstrikes in Yemen on Friday killed Anwar al-Awlaki, an American militant cleric who became a prominent figure in the terror network's most dangerous branch.
Al-Awlaki was directly responsible for planning the Christmas bomb attack that was foiled in 2009. Al-Awlaki had also exchanged up to 20 emails with U.S. Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the man behind the Ft. Hood rampage. Hasan initiated the contacts, drawn by al-Awlaki's Internet sermons, and approached him for religious advice.
This is one of the major reasons I voted for President Obama. The strategy by the Bush Administration against Al Qaeda was clearly the wrong one. This new strategy that combines intelligence gathering with surgical attacks has dealt Al Qaeda several serious blows since President Obama took office. It's ability to carry out any sort of significant attacks has been greatly marginalized and it's due the shift in policy.
10 comments:
I do have to wonder if you would so wholeheartedly endorse this if a Republican was President.
I guess extralegal killing is okay when it is your guy doing it.
If Bush had stayed on focus in Afghanistan, not gone into Iraq, and pursued a policy intelligence gathering combined with surgical strikes such as this then yes, I would have.
At this point, it's a question of competence. I think we can clearly see which one of the two is more competent.
I don't believe for you that it is a question of competence - it is a question of which Party is doing it.
I have a problem with a federal govt that can decide to kill someone just because. Doesn't matter if it is an R or a D that is giving the order. Is that at all comprehensible to you - or will you insist that it must mean I love conservatives/Republicans?
Well, juris, even though you don't believe in Him, God bless you for thinking the way you do. I'm serious. I think we do need people to question killing someone just because. I just can't be that person because I think if you run off to join the Nazis and fight against us, then you are a traitor.
But your point raises an interesting question. What's the metric now for killing someone? It is it just an Al Qaeda specific thing?
What's the metric now for killing someone? It is it just an Al Qaeda specific thing?
That is one of the most intelligent questions you have posed in a very long time. As you might imagine I have no love for al-Awlaki, but what exactly did he do to deserve death? Who did he kill, maim, torture, steal from, assault or slander? If he was firing a gun at U.S. citizens or troops - hey, he gets what is coming to anyone who does that.
Is the justification for killing a U.S. citizen - even if he denounced the country and "renounced" his allegiance - that he ran his mouth off? If that is all it takes - what keeps the govt from using the same means to deal with OccupyWallStreet?
That is why I say it is a partisan thing - because ultimately you only trust D's with this essentially unlimited power. I don't trust anyone.
Well, I wouldn't have asked it if you hadn't provoked the thought so the credit goes all to you. I guess I'm wondering what the alternative would have been. He was in a foreign country fighting as a combatant against the government of Yemen and western interests. Capturing him and bringing him back for trial would have been extremely difficult. Perhaps the parameters for targeted assassination start becoming clear if you are an international criminal engaging in crimes abroad.
Regarding Wall Street, I'm going to have something on that soon. That could get very ugly and it may very well be the beginning of something very sweeping, change wise.
Are you sure he was fighting as a combatant? I thought he was a PR guy? A face and voice.
Granted that may be determined to be providing aid to enemy forces - but if not is that reason enough to order the death of someone?
Good questions, GD. When you are combating an ideology, isn't a PR guy a combatant?
I don't know Mark, that's getting awfully close to using lethal force against the expression of ideas one doesn't like.
I don't know Mark, that's getting awfully close to using lethal force against the expression of ideas one doesn't like.
Sen. McCarthy with a machine gun instead of a megaphone to deal with Teh Communists.
Remember - every power that the govt ever gets will eventually be used by the people you least trust. Why is that such a tough concept for liberals/progressives?
Post a Comment