On Fox, Gretchen speculates that (Obama) " wouldn't get anything out of "Awlaki if captured

[librechik]

she meant " because that pussy Obama would never torture Awlaki like warrior Bush would "



http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201109300004


:grr:

[leveymg]

1. No need to torture him. We've known every word he's written, and everyone he's communicated with,

for many, many years, apparently . . . going back to the Flt. 77 hijackers before 9/11. Think about the implications of that, and why they would simply blow him up rather than capture him and put him before a real, open civilian trial with real lawyers.

[Harmony Blue]

3. Torture doesn't work in the real world, but Americans

perceive it to work because it works on t.v. shows.

I too would have liked to see this man on trial given his links go as far back to 9/11.

[leveymg]

7. His apparent monitoring or more direct ties to US intel go back to BEFORE 9/11. That's the point.

Goes to cover-up of warnings and foreknowledge obtained by infiltration and monitoring of the Saudi-backed AQ support network inside the US and of the global operational cells.

[librechik]

4. I know, levey it is shocking

they apparently executed an American citizen for, essentially, exercising his first amendment rights. When are we going to target Limbaugh Beck or Savage, who do so much more damage to the country while perpetrating the same crime? We used to be resolute about the part where it says we protect even repugnant speech because that is the strength of out country, of our Constitution.

I'm sorry, bu ti's so hard to believe Obama is this evil. He must be under some severe duress to allow--no, order--these things. O am I too much of an optimist?

[leveymg]

8. I think this marks a loosening in the rules of engagement of the GWOT, that wasn't ended by Obama,

just expanded.

Am I shocked? No.

[HighContext]

2. Besides the point. You can't capture people with drones.

And, apparently, we're incapable of driving down streets, undetected, and capturing these people w/out losing many American soldiers...
Who watches Fox news anymore, anyways?
:confused:

[librechik]

5. we could have captured Osama from the scenario I've read. Why not Awlaki?

and I heard the clip elsewhere, I don't watch faux myself.

[HighContext]

9. The same reason we didn't capture Osama. It was risky and we didn't want to risk American lives.

So, we risk their citizens lives. And we got him.

I'm kinda in the middle when it comes to this issue.
If you align yourself with an organization whose stated claim is to kill Americans and etc etc...not sure you deserve all the rights afforded the average citizen. Could be wrong though, I'm no constitutional lawyer or anything.

[librechik]

10. doesn't make sense--lives were at risk with Osama, the Seals did that willingly

not to mention in Awlaki's case, we were assassinating an American citizen.

Traditionally in this country we protect speech we hate, for example, the Nazi march on Hoboken was it?
All of a sudden that isn't a universal value. Some Americans don't deserve due process. When that happens, I am afraid it's a short hop to NO Americans deserve due process when the president says so. That could be terribly abused in the future with the wrong president in power.

[HighContext]

11. There are no absolutes. I hate to break that to ya...

Less American soldiers are at risk now, because we use unmanned drones. How's that?

Maybe I misspoke. With less soldiers on the ground, we have less soldiers coming home in bodybags. Of course, with every killed civilian in Iraq, Semen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. more American lives (not just soldiers) are at risk because of terrorism! So, of course, for that reason some say the war itself was a mistake. Using aggression to counteract aggression. But, seriously, I can't see any president responding to an attack with peaceful bartering and sanctions...and still keeping his job. Not to say it's right, but, it's there.

As far as saying 'Obama killed this man because he isn't white' that's a pretty weird thing to say.
Is that really what you're saying?

And, as everyone knows, not all speech is protected, I'm afraid I don't share your concern with this become a 1984 dystopia where future president #12 shoots everyone who disagrees with him. Maybe that's a mistake on my part. I guess, in the end, what differs between me and some is that I see this man as a real threat. The same way German Americans fighting in WWII against the US were shot at and killed without seeking a judge's ruling first. they were a clear and immediate threat and I don't lose sleep that they were Americans and got killed by our military.

Also---->Nazi marches in Hoboken. Okay...when was the last time Nazi's took out 2,000 Americans?
How realistic is that comparison? Think about it because I've got to say, you're stretching my credulity.
KnowwhatImsayin?

It's fun, though!
Thanks for corresponding.
:)

[librechik]

12. I guess I just don't believe in the legality of a "GWOT" Should be an international policing thing

not warfare--terrorsts are not countries and really don't have armies.

It was so stupid to watch our entire army creak into place (weeks and weeks of moving equipment men etc to turn what should have been an interpol thing into a "War") Solely for the purpose, IMO, of allowing Republicans to gain political capital and control, not because the tactics were appropriate (or, in retrospect, effective)

Ideally a drone like situation is great for ACTUAL Warfare, and I wouldn' object to comabatants being blown away in an actual declared war. But this is war in support of BP, Conoco and Exxon, not the US. It's illegal, and it will bring our integrity down even further than it already has fallen thanks to Bush.

Yes, thanks for the conversation!

[Drale]

6. I don't think we could have captured him alive

We got lucky getting that close to Bin Laden without someone tipping him off and him getting away.