The one thing that worries me?
Why do people seem to believe this is a first time situation?
:hmmm:
All Countries have been whacking people from day one since Countries were invented and before.

Hell, I'd whack the Guy next door if I had the power to cover it all up!
And so would every Man Jack reading this!
:har:

Simple.
You betray a trust given to you?
You DIE!!
Most Hard Core Bikers will tell you that!

Obamnassiah is never wrong. Shame on you comrade, the inquisition is on their way to your location as we speak to re-educate you. Only hurt for a minute.....

I figured you would. I humbly assume you'll forgive me for using you in my example. :salute:

Time to make a wish, it's that once in a blue moon time when August and I agree on something. ;)

I don't have the room to take them all prisoner so unfortunately I won't be able to accept their surrender.

Was there anything else?

Do people who jump out of perfectly good air planes, actually take prisoners?
:har:

Sure, once the perimeter expands enough... :DL

Usually a little too late by then. but, hey-they brought it upon themselves.

:har:

:yeah:

I have to admit - this is one of those that I agree does become a slippery slope. However, only because the legal foundation that allows this to occur is a bit of a stretch.

While there was no conviction and punishment set by the judicial system, and while the target could have claimed constitutional protections, you have to realze that the basis for this action was one rooted in the concept of self defense. His actions - inciting others to violence, providing direction and thus assistance to those attacking us, meant that he was a direct threat to the lives of others. However, there is no way of knowing if he was headed to a safehouse to finalize or oversee an attack, or if he was just on his way to camelking for a burger (one hump, or 2?) and fries.

Its like when an armed person is in a house and can threaten others. As long as other people are in danger, the subject is a target that can be taken out if he looks out the window or door. How many times a week do you hear of police officers shooting someone due to them being a danger to other people? It happens all the time. So the rational that he was a danger - short or long term - is the justification.

The problem is - in cases where the police shoot - there has to be an IMMEDIATE or IMMINENT danger to the lives of innocent people. There is no claim by the government that this hit took place because there was intel showing he was an immenent threat.

Thus the slippery slope.

Do I think the killing was legal? Yes. Do I think it still bears watching? Absolutely.

Just remember - "evidence" is manufactured every day by governmental offices. Other governments - and ours. Its simply a question of who they choose to target. If the citizenry does not watch them closely now - the government will watch the citizenry closer that we would ever want.....

Its our job to keep government honest and in line with the rules. This convo is one good way to help do that.

The funny thing is, Obama criticized Bush for everything he did in regards to handling the war against terror, but I do not remember Sadam being killed outright. I believe we were taking these terrorists prisoner for the most part, otherwise we wouldn't of needed Gitmo.

Liberals, do as I say, not as I do.

Now see - as a conservative - I'd rather save the time and money for transport, security and trial. Its quicker just to take him out.

Course - I am for a return to hanging - we could use the same rope and save even more....

One argument that might be made, and I suspect will be made if any more protest is made over the raid, is that the target was actually Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri, a Saudi bomb expert also reportedly killed in the raid. He's the guy who allegedly made the luckless underwear bomber's device, among other things. In which case an argument could be made that the US citizen Awlaki (and his friend Samir Khan, also a US citizen and terror supporter, also killed in the raid) was nothing more than collateral damage.

I don't think it changes the legal repercussions of it this much, but, just playing devil's advocate!

Preaching to the choir. :rock:

I would stand up and give a standing ovation but the double standard and hypocrisy of this current administration makes me shake my head in amazement.

I believe that would have made him an indirect threat actually.

I criticized both, so what's that make me? Don't paint everyone with that broad of a brush.