AQAP Issues New Threat Over Osama bin Laden Killing

The media should stop paying so much attention to Osama's son Omar (who seems out for money and fame and had little if any connection to his father in the past decade) and more to Al Qaeda Arabian Peninsula. Who cares Omar and his mother sue the U.S.?

AQAP leader Nasser al-Wahishi posted a new threat to Americans and Jews today.

"Do not think of the battle superficially... What is coming is greater and worse, and what is awaiting you is more intense and harmful," Wahishi said, according to a SITE translation.

"We promise Allah that we will remain firm in the covenant and that we will continue the march, and that the death of the sheikh will only increase our persistence to fight the Jews and the Americans in order to take revenge."

President Obama's poll bump won't last long if they succeed. Things that will make them even madder: Killing Anwar al-Awlaki (here's their past threat on that) or mistreating Osama's wives. The killing of Osama bin Laden has opened up a whole new can of worms.

< Dream Act Reintroduced in Congress | Osama's Diary: Nothing Operational >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Seriously Jeralyn? (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by andgarden on Wed May 11, 2011 at 01:14:53 PM EST
    These folks put out new threats regularly.

    I know it isn't popular ... (none / 0) (#11)
    by Robot Porter on Wed May 11, 2011 at 02:10:37 PM EST
    to say this in the United States of Gitmo, but I believe the old policy U.S. towards terrorism was superior.  

    Not popular ... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Robot Porter on Wed May 11, 2011 at 03:19:11 PM EST
    and not even grammatical.  Multitasking is overrated.



    Did they put out a list of the things that will (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by steviez314 on Wed May 11, 2011 at 01:18:15 PM EST
    make them even madder?  Maybe we should only stick to the things that would mildly annoy them?

    I mean, we're not talking about the Muslim man-in-the-street here, but a terrorist gang.

    Opportunity? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by mmc9431 on Wed May 11, 2011 at 01:19:05 PM EST
    Until we accept the fact that we can't bomb or kill our way out of this, we're doomed to repeat the same mistakes. I have no doubts that my grandchildren will still be fighting the "War on Terror".

    I would hope that with all the turmoil in the Middle East right now, we would view this as an opportunity to change the dialogue. The people in most of the countries are waking up and looking for a better life.

    But (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by jbindc on Wed May 11, 2011 at 01:34:09 PM EST
    Do you honestly believe that these specific people are interested in sitting down with the west and having a conversation?  First of all, they are not a "country", so sitting down with them gives them legitimacy as a "government".  Secondly - they have no interest in having diplomatic relations with us - they want us dead. Period. It wouldn't matter if all the legitimate governments in the Middle East suddenly decided we were their BFF's.

    Until we accept the fact that these people are not going to hold hands and sing kumbaya with us, there will be much time wasted on pearl-clutching and hand wringing.


    We don't need to hold hands.... (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by kdog on Wed May 11, 2011 at 01:41:13 PM EST
    with the 1% of the muslim world that rolls like AQAP...all we need is to get the other 99% to stand with us.

    Taking it easy with the drones and executions and foreign adventures in bloody occupation might lock up that 99%, granted it might mean greater short term risk...but thats how you win this thing, I'm with mmc.


    the other problem is that (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jondee on Wed May 11, 2011 at 01:57:36 PM EST
    there isn't just one "we" or "us" that the rest of the world wants to hang with. There's still a brutal, Kissingerian realpolitik faction here that, under different circumstances, will spin the AQ of the world as "the equivalent of our founding fathers", gives India the bomb (impelling Pakistan to get one), lets Benazir Bhutto and her father be murdered while propping up dictators etc etc

    Jondee is uninformed (none / 0) (#70)
    by Politalkix on Wed May 11, 2011 at 09:18:54 PM EST
    He wrote " Kissingerian realpolitik faction here that, under different circumstances,.... gives India the bomb (impelling Pakistan to get one)".

    This is blatantly false. The Soviet Union helped the Chinese with the bomb first. After the Chinese tested their nuclear device in 1964, India got alarmed because the Chinese and Indians fought a war in 1962 which went disastrously for India. India started its nuclear program, thereafter. By 1974 or 1975, India had developed sufficient technology indigeneously (or possibly with some help from the Soviets because by that time Nixon had opened up China and Pakistan was on the side of America during throughout the cold war while India was non-aligned or more Soviet friendly)that rendered it capable of making a nuclear bomb.
    China then helped Pakistan develop its atomic bomb (some of the centrifuge technology was stolen by AQ Khan from western countries like Netherlands, Germany and Candada).
    America did not give India the bomb; India and America were on opposite sides during the cold war.
    Owing to Kissingerian realpolitik, America supported dictatorships in China and Pakistan with a goal to bring down the Soviets. America had a very cold relationship with another democracy, India because of Kissingerian realpolitik during the cold war (particularly after Nixon became President).
    Things have changed a lot for the better now. America's friendships with democracies like India, S. Korea, Japan, etc are almost getting as strong with the friendship we have with West European democracies. If we continue along this path, we will also, one day, have very strong relationships with Arab democracies (once they occur).


    Now look, kdog (none / 0) (#68)
    by Edger on Wed May 11, 2011 at 08:47:01 PM EST
    You'll never ever get elected making that much sense, you know?

    There's no choice (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by mmc9431 on Wed May 11, 2011 at 01:47:51 PM EST
    I honestly believe we have no alternative.

    Change will only take place when the people want change. We're seeing this right before our eyes now. They want change and a better life. Maybe we need to focus on those aspects.

    I realize in the euphoria of the killing of OBL it isn't popular to say it. but we have a lot to answer for there. Between the Cold War and oil, we've manipulated them for decades. We funded and armed some really nasty dictators.

    Your solution that there is no solution is unacceptable. As the economy has shown, we can't afford to be at war for generations. We all better hope that there's an alternative.


    there were die-hard true (none / 0) (#8)
    by jondee on Wed May 11, 2011 at 01:48:43 PM EST
    believers in the Reich who turned around and became semi-respectable citizens after the end of WWII.
    And ex-Stalinist henchman who did the same thing a little later on..

    These people are really that much worse? I doubt it.


    Fully agree with you (none / 0) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 11, 2011 at 03:44:39 PM EST
    And someone should notify them too that we have a President out there now collecting real intel on them, and not allowing them to thrive while he focuses on stealing Iraq's oil.

    meanwhile (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by CST on Wed May 11, 2011 at 02:12:08 PM EST
    "Obama is preparing a major speech on political change in the Middle East and North Africa in which he will reportedly ask the Muslim world to reject Islamic militancy in the wake of Osama bin Laden's death."  Link

    "Obama plans to make the case that bin Laden represented a failed approach of the past while populist movements brewing in the Middle East and North Africa represent the future"

    We had to know this was coming.  But I think in some ways it couldn't have come at a better time in the world.  Frankly this is a pretty good opening, although I have no idea how something like this will play overseas.

    Great news (none / 0) (#13)
    by mmc9431 on Wed May 11, 2011 at 02:20:14 PM EST
    As I've stated, this is the only chance we have of "winning" this war.

    we'd have a much better chance (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by jondee on Wed May 11, 2011 at 02:39:32 PM EST
    if we, as a good faith gesture, liquidated a big chunk of that network of 700 military bases scattered across the globe and started reexamining the idea that poverty stricken, repressive states - as long as they remain poverty stricken and repressive - represent an exploitive opportunity for the US investor class.

    And.......... (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by mmc9431 on Wed May 11, 2011 at 02:49:27 PM EST
    Quit arming and supporting repressive dictators might help too!

    And Repeating the cycle (none / 0) (#57)
    by star on Wed May 11, 2011 at 05:04:48 PM EST
    of arming todays 'rebels/mujahidins' , tomorrows 'terrorist'.

    Of course (none / 0) (#26)
    by jbindc on Wed May 11, 2011 at 02:59:47 PM EST
    We should go back to an isolationist policy - don't bother anyone outside our borders.

    That worked real well for us too.


    Too different subjects (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by mmc9431 on Wed May 11, 2011 at 03:09:49 PM EST
    I didn't recommend isolationism. There's a world of difference between working with developing nations and arming and funding dictators that are only interested in power and lining their own pockets.

    Doubt the common person in ME and (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Wed May 11, 2011 at 02:31:46 PM EST
    N. Africa will pay much attention.  U.S. has been making pronouncements forever, and recently, re Egypt, Libya, Syria, etc.  to what effect?

    Interested in hearing it (none / 0) (#19)
    by mmc9431 on Wed May 11, 2011 at 02:47:21 PM EST
    If it's just a "Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead" speech, it won't do a thing.

    If he adds substance to the speech and outlines ways to improve relationships, then he might have a way of opening at least a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel.

    The problem comes in that Obama really isn't too much on substance!


    Wasn't that the purpose of the President's (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by oculus on Wed May 11, 2011 at 02:56:29 PM EST
    speech in Cairo?

    And nothing came of that? (none / 0) (#75)
    by CST on Thu May 12, 2011 at 09:21:36 AM EST
    I'm not saying the president's speech in Cairo caused the uprising.  But you can't point to that and say he failed at influencing the conversation.

    Speech! (none / 0) (#59)
    by star on Wed May 11, 2011 at 05:09:49 PM EST
    Ah another speech. People in ME are lot less patient than Americans with pretty words NOT followed up suitable actions.
    Already I heard discussions in Al Jazeera at least 3 different times about how Muslim world is perceiving Obama as some one who speaks from both sides of his mouth.

    After the Cairo speech, Drone attacks increased many fold, then there was we support Mubarak, oh we dont - We will 'kill or capture' Gaddafi, but Assad of Syria is a 'reformer'...Mum about Ahmedinajaad (but secret assasination of Nuke scientists by CIA and Mossad) , make a racket about Israeli settlements, but when they actually start building, total silence.

    A speech will work when there is some coherence in the policy to back it up.


    The other thing that OBL's death has (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Anne on Wed May 11, 2011 at 02:28:57 PM EST
    done is resurrect a lot of the old fears, fears that I now see as being used to both disabuse people of the idea that maybe this means we can ease up on the whole war thing and to quickly give greater latitude to the executive branch so that when the day comes - and I think it will - when in amongst all these variations on a sequence of events, it will be revealed that people did break the law in pursuit of bin Laden, our government can say, "but see, we made it all okay retroactively by reauthorizing the AUMF to include these things we did."

    And maybe this is pre-emptive to yet more disclosures via WikiLeaks.

    We are publicizing the crap out of this because when people are afraid, they are much more agreeable to allowing the government to "do whatever it has to do" to keep us safe; this is how we ended up with the USA Patriot Act, how we ended up with the FISA amendments, how we ended up in Iraq.  It's how we ended up being intruded upon, X-rayed, searched, listened in on, GPS'd, encouraged to "report suspicious activity," and what happens to all of that if people no longer feel afraid?  What happens if people start to feel like they want their private lives back?

    Better to keep us all shaking in our boots than demanding our freedoms back, isn't it?

    The Mob. (none / 0) (#50)
    by lentinel on Wed May 11, 2011 at 04:45:12 PM EST
    (W)hen people are afraid, they are much more agreeable to allowing the government to "do whatever it has to do" to keep us safe

    Our government is now running the protection racket.

    Another similarity to what used to be called organized crime is the use of words like "hit" and "taking out" as euphemisms for "kill".

    The metamorphosis is well under way.


    that "can of worms" was opened (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by cpinva on Wed May 11, 2011 at 02:55:57 PM EST
    years ago, by the reagan & bush I administrations, when they (through the CIA) provided material support to those fighting the USSR in afghanistan, of which OBL and his gang were a part.

    regardless of how it turned out, OBL was going to be a martyr to the cause, and revenge would be on the menu. it's just how people roll.

    on the plus side, we don't have to worry about them attempting to break him out of jail.

    Carter was actually (none / 0) (#58)
    by coast on Wed May 11, 2011 at 05:05:53 PM EST
    the first US president to provide support to the Afghan fighters.  This support was provided along with other nations including UK, Pakistan, China and others who saw the Soviet occupation as a direct threat to the entire region.

    Actually, that "can of worms" was opened (none / 0) (#77)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 12, 2011 at 12:26:40 PM EST
    in about AD 610. Not sure we can ever expect it to be closed...

    The recent news from (5.00 / 6) (#30)
    by KeysDan on Wed May 11, 2011 at 03:11:29 PM EST
    Abbottabad that  Osama was dosing with a Viagra-like potion, clears up a lot of what happened: the Seals acted in self-defense in keeping with the Mae West school of human behavior. So, the correct narrative is that the Seals, knowing that Osama was not glad to see them, concluded that it was a gun in his pocket.   Case closed.

    ROTFLMAO (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 11, 2011 at 04:30:28 PM EST

    I have to ask, have you been waiting for decades for the right opportunity to turn that Mae West sentence around?  Very funny.  Thanks for a good laugh.


    Well, Viagra reflects my (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by KeysDan on Wed May 11, 2011 at 06:58:39 PM EST
    anti-war philosophy, if it last more than fours hours, you are in trouble.

    Yeah, but (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 12, 2011 at 01:17:56 AM EST
    the Viagra warning is clearly used as a selling point for the drug, are you kidding?

    Don't ask ... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Robot Porter on Wed May 11, 2011 at 04:46:57 PM EST
    don't tell.

    OMG! (none / 0) (#76)
    by star on Thu May 12, 2011 at 10:24:04 AM EST
    This is so funny. Just what I needed this morning. still laughing ..   :-)

    I don't care if they get "madder" (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 11, 2011 at 03:53:38 PM EST
    They are out of their minds mad anyhow on any given day.  It isn't like we are talking about anything NEW with them. Fear of making a terrorist threaten to kill me because I'm preventing them from killing me does not stop me from taking action to stop terrorists before they kill me :)

    Meh (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by lilburro on Wed May 11, 2011 at 03:54:39 PM EST
    Seriously al-Qaeda, your leader was a Coca Cola drinking, mansion dwelling @sshole.  Now leave us alone.

    The worm turns. (none / 0) (#1)
    by lentinel on Wed May 11, 2011 at 01:11:52 PM EST
    The killing of Osama bin Laden has opened up a whole new can of worms.

    And how.

    Did I read or see this wrong? Were Obama and Clinton and Gates and the rest sitting around a table watching a live feed of the killings?

    If so, ooof.

    Supposedly the live video stopped once the (none / 0) (#22)
    by ruffian on Wed May 11, 2011 at 02:52:58 PM EST
    Seals entered the building. Not saying I believe that.

    This chain (none / 0) (#28)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed May 11, 2011 at 03:09:44 PM EST
    reflects the fact that many here are much further left than the average democrat.

    I think we already knew that, but arguing that we shouldn't have taken Osama out kind of solidified it in my eyes.

    Ths comment (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by sj on Wed May 11, 2011 at 03:18:47 PM EST
    reflects the fact that the commenter is not a Democrat by philosophy but rather for convenience as it is presently the vehicle by which O may be supported.

    I think we already knew that, but arguing that he doesn't know a Democratic platform plank from an administration talking point -- and providing supporting links -- merely solidifies the blinders in his eyes.


    Except that (none / 0) (#35)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed May 11, 2011 at 03:49:45 PM EST
    Democrats overwhelmingly approve of Obama's actions against OBL.

    OBL's approval rating generally among dems is 85% and his democratic numbers on his OBL actions are even higher (http://www.gallup.com/poll/147500/Obama-Approval-Bump-Hasnt-Transferred-2012-Prospects.aspx)

    If you aren't pretty high on Obama or what he did with OBL you just aren't a mainstream democrat.  

    Sorry.  The blog world isn't real life. The only ones with blinders are those pretending that there is a large population of democrats unhappy with Obama's past few weeks.


    Sick. (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by lentinel on Wed May 11, 2011 at 04:40:12 PM EST
    If you aren't pretty high on Obama or what he did with OBL you just aren't a mainstream democrat.  

    Your choice of words is really peculiar.

    You are now the arbiter for what makes a mainstream democrat.
    Nice to know.

    And, by the way - although the people who sponsor this blog are partisan democrats, it is not a democratic party blog. It is a blog for people interested in issues concerning Americans who have an interest in civil rights, civil liberties, economic justice, peace and ecology among other issues.

    Many people with those interests feel that their home is in the democratic party. Certainly it can't be in the republican party.
    But that could all change. The democratic party under Obama is as cold and calculating and elitist as the administration that preceded it.


    lentinel (none / 0) (#52)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed May 11, 2011 at 04:48:52 PM EST
    Let me try to appeal to your basic reason in the light of your ridiculous accusation.

    I am not an arbiter of anything.  I just read polls.

    The polls say the following:

    "Overwhelming majorities of all subgroups of the American population approve of Sunday's action, including 97% of Republicans and 95% of Democrats. Independents are slightly less likely to approve, at 89%, with 8% disapproving," Gallup finds."


    Mainstream democrats like what Obama did.

    Hell, almost every democrat liked what Obama did.  Only a small portion of the parties does not and that portion is greatly overrepresented here and in a few other places.

    Now I understand that this blog is not a dem party blog.  That's cool. No problem with that and I think it is bad for pundits to be associated directly with any party.

    The issue is that people here accuse Obama of treason against the party fairly regularly. Even on an issue in which 95% of the democrats support him, he's still seen as a traitor of sorts to many here.  I think that says a lot.


    Pure crappola (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by lentinel on Wed May 11, 2011 at 06:32:45 PM EST
    The issue is that people here accuse Obama of treason against the party fairly regularly. Even on an issue in which 95% of the democrats support him, he's still seen as a traitor of sorts to many here.  I think that says a lot.

    You think your straw-man "says a lot".
    What, exactly, does it say?

    And, Mr. Fox News... who exactly is "people here"?
    Do they not have names?


    This is a riot (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 11, 2011 at 06:40:27 PM EST
    The headline on the link that you provided states:

    Obama's Approval Bump Hasn't Transferred to 2012 Prospects

    PRINCETON, NJ -- Given a choice between Barack Obama and an unnamed Republican, 43% of registered voters say they are more likely to vote for Obama and 40% are more likely to vote for the Republican. This is essentially unchanged from April and February, when voters' preferences were evenly split.
    Republicans' approval of Obama has more than doubled since bin Laden's death, rising to 21% the week of May 2-8 from 10% April 25-May 1. His approval rating rose less among independents, to 47% from 40%, and -- remarkably -- changed little among Democrats.

    Looking (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 11, 2011 at 07:09:37 PM EST
    at those reelect numbers, it looks like an all night election right now.

    Polls aren't real life, ABG. (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Anne on Wed May 11, 2011 at 07:57:06 PM EST
    You have here real live people who say how they feel, what they think and why - and you continually reject that in favor of polls.

    There's no pretending going on here - no one extrapolates what they think into what everyone thinks - but you do.  You take polls that sample 750 or 1,200 people and take it to the bank: as far as you're concerned, what 1,000 people say in response to questions that leave out important information is more valuable than what a real cross-section of people actively discussing, reading, listening, researching, living, experiencing are telling you.

    I don't think I have read one comment that has taken Obama to task for getting bin Laden; some of us have questioned his framing of the results, and there have been questions about what the mission was, and the many - too many - versions of what happened delivered by an assortment of administration officials.

    I said this in response to you on an earlier thread, but I don't adjust my beliefs in order to fit into anyone else's definition of what a mainstream democrat is.  I'm over the whole peer pressure thing, and I sure as hell am not interested in setting aside my own interests in order to advance someone else's political fortunes.

    If your purpose in commenting here is to irritate the crap out of people, congratulations, you have succeeded.

    If you think you will persuade people to turn off their brains, close their eyes and ears to reality in service to one man's fortunes by making them feel like they are missing the boat, you are sadly mistaken.


    Exhibit A (none / 0) (#42)
    by sj on Wed May 11, 2011 at 04:24:21 PM EST
    Don't get it (1.00 / 2) (#47)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed May 11, 2011 at 04:41:02 PM EST
    but this "Obama handled the OBL mission wrongly" is such a depressing meme that I don't completely want to.

    Clinton tried to kill Osama. Failed.
    Bush tried to kill Osama. Failed.

    Obama actually killed Osama with no American casualties, very few innocent casualties and discovered a treasure trove of intel that actually includes Osama's diary in the process and yet somehow, someway, the argument is that he failed.

    It is what it is I guess. Sometimes you just can't win.


    I know you don't get it (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by sj on Wed May 11, 2011 at 04:58:45 PM EST
    For you, being a Democrat is all about Obama.  It's the way you view all events -- current and past:  how brightly does it make O shine.

    It's both amusing and very sad.  When it isn't irksome.


    Irrelevant (none / 0) (#69)
    by Yman on Wed May 11, 2011 at 08:52:07 PM EST
    Clinton tried to kill Osama. Failed.
    Bush tried to kill Osama. Failed.

    The fact that Bush and Clinton tried to kill Bin Laden and "failed" is irrelevant.  The issue is whether Obama did the right thing by killing Bin Laden under the circumstances he was given.  I think it really comes down to what the orders were.  Was it really an assassination mission, or were the orders to capture him if possible without unnecessarily endangering the team members?  We'll probably never know the answer, or at least not until it's declassified many years from now.

    Either way, Bush and Clinton weren't presented with the opportunity to capture him alive, so your argument is silly.


    Have you ever tried to think for yourself? (none / 0) (#56)
    by observed on Wed May 11, 2011 at 05:00:08 PM EST
    Do you start every day by looking at polls of what "mainstream democrats", "moderates" and OFB-ers think?

    Sure, its good that Osama is not going to be planning any more terrorism. On the other hand, it seems clear that there wasn't even an attempt to capture Bin Laden---this was just an assassination. It's depressing that people don't even care.


    I think for myself often (none / 0) (#60)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed May 11, 2011 at 06:23:38 PM EST

    And add me to the list.  In this instance I don't care either.  I am glad he is dead and glad that it happened the way it did in this particular situation.


    you forgot . . . (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by nycstray on Wed May 11, 2011 at 06:40:23 PM EST
    because it makes Obama's poll numbers go up  :)

    Well, that's ALWAYS ... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Yman on Wed May 11, 2011 at 08:21:30 PM EST
    ... the primary consideration in any situation ...

    ... so it's a given.


    Count me (none / 0) (#71)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 12, 2011 at 01:12:51 AM EST
    as not caring.  Why should I care?  Actually, I'm glad they didn't capture him, given the current political environment in this country.  Not worth it.

    No one expects you, or anyone else, (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Anne on Thu May 12, 2011 at 07:08:56 AM EST
    to "care" about bin Laden in the context of him being the-man-behind-the-attacks-on-9/11-where-thousands-of-people-died-horrible-deaths; we all share, I think, in the understanding of just how evil a person he was, and that he was not likely to ever get his fill of exacting violent death on as many Americans as possible.

    We all get that - we all feel that.

    I've said before that I don't question that the Navy SEALS carried out their mission exactly as planned, and it is a tribute to their training and skill that there was no loss of life to the team.

    But I still have to care how my government operates, because if I stop caring, I give them carte blanche to do whatever they want, and, eventually, we will have lost oversight and any control over those making the decisions: what if they're not people whose judgment I can trust and whose motives are not driven by power?  What happens then?

    It's about the bigger picture for me, and I worry that the more latitude we give the government, the more room there is for abuse of what I think should be a sacred trust.

    Democracy isn't always easy, and we can't always avoid the messy business of justice; but take a look at the proposed re-authorization of the AUMF and how it has been significantly broadened, how much power is being handed over, and what the implications are.

    In my opinion, this is what not caring about what our government is doing, or is authorized to do, leads; you may be fine with that, you may think that all that matters is that bin Laden is dead, but I think it's much bigger than that - it's always been much bigger than that.  And as long as those who want the power can keep us looking at just one event, at the smaller picture, the easier it will be for them to radically change who we are as a country and change the meanings of democracy and justice.

    Ridiculous?  An overreaction?  I don't think so, not when we've already seen how the events of 9/11 have eroded our rights, invaded our privacy and weakened the foundation of the democracy.


    Truth doesn't have to hurt (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by mmc9431 on Wed May 11, 2011 at 03:25:14 PM EST
    The issue should even be a left or right issue.

    We are a country of laws. When anyone, goes against these laws, it's the responsibilty of the  citizens to question it.

    This is particularly important when those elected to create and support the laws, ignore them.

    I think we would be considerably worse as a nation if we shrugged everything off and accepted that it was done for our good.

    I haven't read many comments condemning Obama for his actions, but we should question decisions made that are contrary to the rule of law.


    Please cite the law (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 12, 2011 at 01:15:14 AM EST
    that forbids knocking off bin Laden.  I'm not aware of any law that forbids any country from taking out a sworn foreign enemy.

    We are a country of laws (none / 0) (#36)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed May 11, 2011 at 03:52:27 PM EST
    But there are thousands of laws being broken and if we have to prioritize which broken laws to spend the most time railing against in our limited time on this planet, the laws broken (if any) by the killing of Bin Laden isn't in the top 2,000 let's say.

    Drug laws are still disproportionately enforced.  I vote we get that out of the way before we concern ourselves with the legalities of the death one of the biggest mass murderers of our time on foreign soil.


    Poor argument (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by mmc9431 on Wed May 11, 2011 at 04:03:21 PM EST
    When the citizens quit questioning the actions of their leaders, they may wake up one day and find they no longer have a voice.

    GWB made a political career of stomping on international law and civil liberties all in the name of security. We were wrong to ignore him and we'll be wrong by ignoring others in the present and future.


    If (none / 0) (#43)
    by lentinel on Wed May 11, 2011 at 04:26:25 PM EST
    OBL was a mass murderer - and I will accept the premise that he was - what does that make G.W. Bush - who is directly responsible (conservatively speaking) for the killing of over 100,000 Iraqi civilians?

    Of course, Bush is of no interest to Obama - except for possible photo-ops at ground zero. But to prosecute for the obvious war crimes of an American president - no thanks. He may be a terrorist, but he's our terrorist.


    what does it make (none / 0) (#78)
    by jondee on Thu May 12, 2011 at 01:18:52 PM EST
    Tokyo, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki -- or, someone who covertly helps herd people into a Chilean soccer stadium and then is punished by being feted and fawned over on Nightline and Charlie Rose for the rest of his life?

    AGB, the topic is (none / 0) (#48)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 11, 2011 at 04:41:42 PM EST
    al qaeda and bin laden. Don't hijack the thread

    Fair enough Jeralyn (none / 0) (#53)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed May 11, 2011 at 04:51:02 PM EST
    Bottom line for me:

    AQ is going to try to kill us regardless of what we do.  I think that we underestimate how much hate their is for Osama out there. He's killed thousands of muslims as well.  

    This was a crucial blow against AQ and a necessary one, even if it provokes some of the extremists.


    Please... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by lentinel on Wed May 11, 2011 at 04:18:55 PM EST
    Who are you to judge who is left and who is further left and what does it matter?

    Why do you post here?
    Are you the designated Obama rep?

    You obviously have contempt for many people posting here.
    I found particularly distasteful a gratuitous insult you hurled at Anne.

    The most annoying part about your droppings is the fact that they are so predictable and packaged. At least the people here for whom you have such contempt are expressing their human feelings.

    And as far as the "average democrat" being further to the right than the people posting here - you haven't a clue what the "average democrat" is thinking or feeling. All you know is what the Obama administration and its spokespeople are doing and spewing. And just about anyone would be to the left of that.


    please ignore ABG (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 11, 2011 at 04:42:38 PM EST
    don't change the topic to him. The topic is al Qaeda and Osama.

    Anne (none / 0) (#54)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed May 11, 2011 at 04:53:21 PM EST
    insults me regularly.

    That's our relationship.  I think it works for us.

    Anyway, back to OBL and AQ.  I respect Jeralyn's gentle nudge.


    Yep - it is called TalkLeft (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by ruffian on Wed May 11, 2011 at 04:23:10 PM EST
    not TalkDem or TalkModerate