Killing of U.S.-born terrorist raises questions (Can the rookie Hussein assassinate?)

The Eagle ^ | 10/01/11 | MATT APUZZO

[Alberta's Child]

One of the interesting things that came out of the 9/11 aftermath was the scrutiny of the Clinton administration's handling of Osama bin Laden in the 1990s. In one interview about the matter, Clinton defended his hands-off approach by suggesting that the U.S. government could not deal with him when the Saudi government offered to hand him over to the U.S., because "we had no evidence that he was ever directly involved in attacks against the U.S." (or something to that effect). This was at the same time (maybe even in the same interview) when he rationalized his decision to issue pardons to those FALN terrorists from New York City by claiming that "they weren't directly involved in making the bombs used in those attacks" (again, or something to that effect).

All this leads me to ask one very simple question: What evidence did anyone in the U.S. government have that this guy in Yemen was a threat to the U.S. that warranted such a response?

The second part of that question is: What was it about that threat that precluded the U.S. government from pursuing normal legal or military avenues against him?

[Chode]

good question...

[momtothree]

Believe me, I do fear the government. I think they already keep tabs on us. (not tin foil hat stuff either but simple, common sense). In this particular case, I see that if we did nothing and ignored the fact that this guy was planning/recruiting people to harm us then the loss could have been on our homeland. I do understand the fear (and find that fear completely rational) that the government starts taking shots on regular citizens/politicians/media type like Rush, GB, Mark Levin/etc... I guess I am just focusing on this particular case and I am glad he is no longer on earth.

[Libloather]

Besides he was probably guilty of resisting a drone.

"You have the right to remain..." BOOM!

[PeteB570]

Well, for one he was tried en absentia in a Yemeni Court, convicted and had a “capture dead or alive” order out for him.

They thought he was guilty, he was hiding in their country and we are assisting them in anti terror work.

That works for me.

[Nebr FAL owner]

The dead mad mohamaden is/was no different than an American citizen who went to Germany ,Italy,Japan just prior to WWII for the purpose of joining the enemy military as a field grade officer (Major or higher rank) and taking active part in plans/operations/killing Americans . He knew what the risks were as an active combatant & got his butt killed . This wasn’t a criminal act the traitor was killed in action while with the enemy F*CK HIM!

[Pining_4_TX]

Exactly the same. Conservatives should have objected to how Bush expanded the powers of the presidency, especially knowing that some day the Democrats would return to power. Liberty once lost is hard to regain.

[Pining_4_TX]

Thank you, that was quite interesting. A member of our family was a police officer for several years, and he would tell us the wild and wooly tales about what bounty hunters do.

[ilovesarah2012]

Desperate times call for desperate measures. The threat of jihad against Americans qualifies, IMHO.

[Pining_4_TX]

From the movie, A Man for All Seasons

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ‘round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!