Skip to main content

View Diary: Assassination Rationales Then & Now--And How Awlaki Didn't Meet Any of the Criteria (163 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This part is just false (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cryonaut
    o one has ever asserted that al-Awlaki was himself a member of Al Quadda, much less an operative, only that he supported the organization through his propaganda.
    This is pure b.s. The administration did in fact assert that Al-Awlaki crossed the line from being a mere propagandist to being an AQ operative. I don't know the truth of this, but it is not correct to say that no one has ever asserted this.
    •  Asserting that you're the Queen Of England (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hayate Yagami, aliasalias

      doesn't make it valid, does it?

      Was any grand jury, judge or Congressional Committee allowed to see the "assertion" or test it's credibility?

      The BS I'm seeing is you want to claim all presented here is somehow false for a minor failure.

      I could care less if they "asserted" anything. UNTIL they prove that "assertion", it's meaningless.

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 09:55:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's not the point (0+ / 0-)

        The point is that it is not accurate to point out as the diarist does, that "no one ever asserted" that Al-Awlaki was a member of AQ and the he "only supported the organization" through his propaganda"  when in fact, the administration, as well as other governments have in fact asserted that he was a top operative in the region. I don't know if this is true, but there is evidence to suggest that it is.  The Undewear bomber has in fact claimed to authorities that Al-Awlaki personally recruited him for his missing and helped arrange training. For me, a US male citizen with no English roots to claim Queen Elizabeth II, would be ludicrous on its face and not worthy of even considering. There are reasons to believe that Al-Alwaki was not merely a harmless anti American propagandist.

        •  What made him a "top operative"? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          aliasalias

          His right to free press, one of those pesky details in that damn piece of paper...

          You've done a good job here diverting people from the topic, haven't you?

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 03:26:34 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  ? (0+ / 0-)

            I didn't say that he was. I pointed out that the diarist falsely claimed that no one had ever accused him of being more than a propagandist.  I also pointed out that there is credible evidence to support their case. It may  be that he wasn't, as I conceded above, although there is evidence that the government's position is in fact correct.  

            •  Again, what "credible evidence", if they had it (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              aliasalias

              why didn't they take it to a grand jury and INDICT him?

              Clearly they didn't have the "evidence" you wish to believe they had.

              DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

              That is the issue here.

              If they have nothing to hide, then why aren't they showing us, the American people what they do have?

              If they have nothing to hide, then release the damn "secret court rulings", "secret documents", "secret evidence" and "secret legal interpretations".

              Obviously they have something to hide and they're guilty until proven innocent.  Guilty of treason, IMO.

              -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

              by gerrilea on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 03:47:58 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The evidence provided by (0+ / 0-)

                Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. You can disbelieve him if you wish, but in doing so, you have to imagine a giant conspiracy between Mr. Abdulmtallab, his attorney, the US DOJ, The government of Great Britain, the then Government of Yemen and the New York Times. Possible, but unlikely. Simpler answer is that Capt. Underpants was telling the truth.

                •  ROFL, what a short attention span you think I (0+ / 0-)

                  have.

                  The Downing Street Memo's?  You'd have me believe verifiable liars, such as the British Government and their co-conspirators, the US government?

                  If our government had evidence of his crimes, all they had to do was go to present their evidence to a grand jury and obtain an indictment against him.

                  It's that simple.  

                  -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                  by gerrilea on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 05:57:45 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

      •  once you claim to be the member of the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dr Swig Mcjigger

        enemy we are fighting on the battlefield, you are fair game. I wouldn't try to confirm it nicely.

    •  Er...the same people who wanted justification (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gerrilea, Hayate Yagami, aliasalias

      for the extra-judicial execution also are saying he was a member of Al-Quaeda?  Kind of like being judge, jury and executioner all in one isn't it?

      if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 01:47:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site