Comments: Barack Obama: Anti-Terror Warrior?

Yes, but....

We now have a precedent: when a President declares someone to be 'an enemy' that President can summarily take them out.

Al-Awakkeee (whatever) was a clear-cut case.

But who's next?

Posted by dad29 at October 3, 2011 12:03 PM

Which begs the question...
Is Bin Laden really dead? Or is he in his own personal hell somewhere being pumped for that info...
Of course he could then be buried at sea, preferably tied in a burlap sack with lots of pig entrails and dropped from about 30,000 feet...

Posted by Dan Maloney at October 3, 2011 03:51 PM

Exactly what benefit is there to being an American citizen? You are compelled to pay income tax? In Texas, if you are not a citizen and not supposed to be in the country, then you get breads on schooling and college not available to an American citizen. Now we have a situation were the president can declare he does not like you and bang, you are dead. The problem that we have is this stupid "war on terror". What in the world does that mean? In this case we should have asked Yemen to produce the terrorist. If they didn't. Then take out the friggen country. I think people would get the message then and we would not have to go around the globe looking for every cockroach under every stone. That is the job of a country and a government, to police its borders or risk war.

Posted by david7134 at October 4, 2011 01:53 PM

"we are at war and have been since at least the first attack on the World Trade Center on Feb. 26, 1993 and probably since the Islamic takeover of Iran in late 1979"

Not to pick nits, but I would place the first Islamic attack on America as, October 11, 1784, when Islamic pirates seized the brigantine Betsey.

Posted by Mark E at October 4, 2011 05:58 PM

Dear Mark E:

Indeed. Oh, for a President like Thomas Jefferson! That was a man that knew how to "negotiate" with Islamic pirates. Arrrrrrrrr!

Posted by Mike Mc at October 4, 2011 07:17 PM

Was thinking: back during WWII, weren't there people born here of German parents who returned to Germany to fight for the Reich? I don't believe there was any question about, since they were fighting for the enemy, their being killed; so, aside from all the yelling, what's the difference between them and this?

I realize the 'specifically find him and kill him' is different, but aside from that?

Posted by Firehand at October 5, 2011 07:10 PM

Firehand:

Good point indeed. The issue, in WWII and now, is simple: Are we at war? Check. Are they enemy combatants? Check. They can be killed whenever and wherever they are found? Check.

Whether some people think we're being mean to people that would gladly saw off the heads of our children for posting on YouTube with a dull, rusty knife is another matter entirely.

Thanks for your comment!

Posted by Mike Mc at October 5, 2011 09:26 PM