I respect opposition to drone strikes against people like al-Awlaki. But . . .

[RZM]

I think it's incumbent upon those who oppose such actions to endorse a different way of dealing with people like this. If your argument is 'try him according to US law,' then I think you need to determine exactly how to go about this. I see only three options:

1) Do nothing. Let him do his thing in peace.

2) Let the locals capture him and turn him over to us. That sounds good when we're talking about places where the central government has authority over the entire country. But Yemen is not such a place. Placing the onus on the Yemenis to deal with al-Awlaki is a de facto abdication of responsibility for dealing with him. We all know that he was more than capable of evading the Yemeni government and doing his work with minimal risk of capture.

3) Extraction missions. IMO this would be the only way to go if you are serious about the US getting its hands on him. But this scenario poses some serious problems. For one, it places the lives of US military personnel at risk. If he resists, then you will get the same outcome as a drone strike. There's also no guarantee of getting them that way either. It's not hard to envisage a scenario where an Al-Qaida operative learns of an impending raid at the last second and flees, leaving behind a bomb at that detonates when US personnel enter enter safe house. Of course, there's no guarantee that you will get somebody with a drone strike either, but such an action does not endanger US personnel. Civilian casualties are going to be an issue no matter which course you are talking about.

Also, extraction raids would give terrorists many more opportunities to enhance their stature by engaging in direct combat with US troops. I'm no expert in martyrdom, but I imagine it's considered better to die fighting with an AK-47 in your hand than to be vaporized by a missile that you never saw coming. Many terrorists would probably welcome opportunities to take a few US soldiers with them on their way out.

This is a tough issue that brings up tough questions. But I think that if you oppose one course of action strongly, you need to endorse something else. I have serious reservations about drone strikes, but in some cases I do feel that they are the 'least bad option.'

*Edited to add the first option*

[librechik]

1. mny solution would involve getting the US to stop interfering with other countries

politics and resources, and so inspire less terrorism. But I suppose that is totally out of the question.

[dtexdem]

31. Great idea in general, but useless for this discussion.

Because no matter what the long-term causes of terrorism, terrorism exists now and does threaten many.

[demosincebirth]

34. +100

[Cali_Democrat]

2. Maybe we should should stop bombing, attacking and occupying Muslim countries

Ever think of that?

There's a reason why certain folks in the Muslim world hate us and it ain't because our "freedoms" somehow pissed them off.

We're not going to rid the world of "terrorism" through drone strikes. That's laughable.

Just sayin'

[RZM]

11. I did think of that

Though I didn't include that option in the first version. It's been edited now though. I'll put you down for 'do nothing.'

[Cali_Democrat]

14. Your option should be:

End all US wars and bring home all US troops and military assets from around the world.

[RZM]

17. That's nice, but it's not happening anytime soon

So how about in the meantime?

[MicaelS]

20. Let's just leave the Muslims AND the Jews alone to

"Settle" their differences. That way when the Muslims next attack Israel, and Israel responds with it's arsenal of 75-400 nuclear AND thermonuclear weapons delivered by ICBM, aircraft, and submarine, on every Muslim city, we can say "Hey, it's not our fault, we had nothing to do with it. No blood on our hands." :sarcasm:

[Cali_Democrat]

23. So why exactly are we attacking and occupying Muslim countries?

I'm confused by your post.

[ixion]

3. Two words: Due Process.

'nuff said.

[hifiguy]

5. +1 nt

[RZM]

8. That's exactly the type of response that doesn't cut it

I agree. I would like to see him tried too. But you have to get ahold of him first, right?

[ixion]

12. Yes, but involving the military is not the answer. The answer is due process.

because without that, any nation-state can justify killing anyone anywhere for any reason.

The Magna Carta and our Constitution were specifically written as a response to royal assassination decrees. He should be indicted, and face an impartial trial by a jury of his peers. Otherwise, we're right back in the Middle Ages.

[RZM]

13. Ok. So try him in absentia?

And be unable to carry out whatever sentence in pronounced?

[ixion]

30. well, I'm opposed to killing people, but that would be better than not.

I appreciate your willingness to debate the issue, however. :toast:

[bowens43]

22. so being difficult to capture makes murdering him ok?

nope, it's wrong. period.

[RZM]

25. I think it makes it the 'least bad option'

Chasing him around the desert while he thumbs his nose at us puts military lives at risk and gives Al-Qaida a propaganda highlight: 'Look at these idiot infidels trying to get me. They'll never take me alive. Ha ha!'

What the administration has calculated is that this course is better than the extraction course. Your opinion makes perfect sense and I see where you are coming from. But that course of action has consequences of its own.

[jberryhill]

32. That's done all of the time in ordinary criminal situations

If a criminal is engaged in a deadly crime - e.g. a hostage situation - and will not surrender or be apprehended without substantial risk.

A bank robber holding hostages can (a) turn himself in, or (b) take his chances with the snipers.

The option of challenging his designation in court was available to him.

[Ian David]

4. Aerial drops adhesive foam strikes followed by extraction.

Sticky foam
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sticky foam is an incapacitant, used when less lethal force is required, consisting of various extremely tacky and/or tenacious materials carried in compressed form with a propellant and used to block, entangle, and impair individuals. A National Institute of Justice-funded project at Sandia National Laboratory developed a "gun" which could fire multiple shots of sticky foam. After testing the product for corrections applications, Sandia provided the U.S. Marine Corps Operation United Shield with sticky foam guns and supporting equipment to assist in the withdrawal of UN Peacekeepers from Somalia. Problems with this technology include: the serious risk of smothering (suffocating) the subject; skin clean-up (the foam may not be toxic, but solvents are often harsh); "gun" clogging; targeting and firing; and gun cleaning. The Marine Corps reportedly successfully used the sticky foam guns as part of the operation in Somalia. The sticky foam was mentioned in the bestseller book, "Men who stare at goats," and became slightly better known to the general public. Scott, Steven H.; "Sticky foam as a less-than-lethal technology," p. 96-103 of Proc. SPIE v. 2934, Security Systems and Nonlethal Technologies for Law Enforcement, John B. Alexander, Debra D. Spencer, Steve Schmit & Basil J. Steele, Eds.

More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticky_foam

[SidDithers]

28. The New Zealanders also used a form of sticky foam in John Wyndham's The Chrysalids...

if I recall correctly. It's been a long time since reading it,, though.

Sid

[EFerrari]

6. I endorse the rule of law, which should be our default and not the other way around.

As it is, Obama and JSOC have merely globalized the Salvador Option which was wrong in the jungles of Central America and it's still wrong today.

[Taverner]

7. I maybe unpopular in saying this, but "Al Queda" is not a threat

His "link" to the Fort Hood shootings is a leap at best, and Hassan would have gone on that rampage whether or not this guy was involved.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

26. Al Qaeda has not done as much damage to the U.S. as the fight against Al Qaeda has

We are poorer and less free because of it.

[Solomon]

37. Okay right. I'll take your knowledge of the guy over the intell

the Potus gets. (Smacks own head). How could I have been so stupid!

[Taverner]

38. When's the last time "Al Queda" attacked us?

[gratuitous]

9. I suppose following our own Constitution is out of the question

After all, following the rule of law and insisting that other countries do the same is so time-consuming! It's inconvenient. And it doesn't yield the instant gratification of a drone strike, should the strike actually be successful. Besides, if other people aren't following the rules, why should we? And the only people our drone strikes kill are really, really bad. Truly. Trust our leaders where mistakes are almost never made.

When you foment an atmosphere of lawlessness, as the "exceptional" United States is doing, it's no surprise that other countries don't feel a particular compulsion to be lawful, either.

[Amonester]

29. I honestly think that ALL 'other countries' would NOT feel a particular

compulsion to be 'lawful' anyway, even if you NEVER forment an atmosphere of lawlessness.

Whether we like it or not, this is how this species of (stupid) mortals (stupid because, historically PROVEN UNABLE to behave peacefully forever after...), yes, it's HOW it's ALWAYS been, and (unfortunately) will ALWAYS be.

Having the 'luck' of not being at the wrong place at the wrong time is more or less all we have to be really 'secure' of ANYTHING.

That's what plain old reality is about (IMVHO).

[RZM]

10. OP has been edited to add a third option n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

15. See reply #14. n/t

[RevStPatrick]

16. Can't we try people in abstentia?

Convict him in abstentia?
Then, go after him to serve his sentence, and if, at that point, he resists, then... oh well!

[RZM]

18. That's essentially option three with the order of events reversed n/t

[Ichingcarpenter]

19. This Road the US government is going down

will come back and kick them in the ass one day

I'm for Due Process and the rule of Law, not this CIA type assassination type of justice.
No wonder the US is no longer a participate in the World Court where international terrorist and criminals are charge and prosecuted.

The Bush administration led the way and now I fear this administration can't get off his bus.

[bowens43]

21. if he violated the law he should be prosecuted.

he should be tried in a court of law. This was murder , pure and simple.

[jberryhill]

33. That is why murder suspects often turn themselves in

It is why hostage takers are requested to surrender.

If a hostage taker, or other criminal engaged in the ongoing commission of a deadly crime, does not surrender, then he will be taken out with force if the opportunity presents itself.

[JVS]

24. No. It is incumbent on our leadership to develop a way of dealing with people like this within...

the existing legal system, or failing that they must use proper procedure to modify the existing legal system.

[City of Mills]

27. Drop big nets from helicopters

Then reel them up and sort out anyone captured. If anyone innocent is caught up in the nets, throw them back.

[spanone]

35. the thought that killing one man will make a shred of difference is absurd.

ala blin laden....nothing changed...it's public relations...and murder, in this case, of a u.s. citizen.

[GeorgeGist]

36. Killing children really shouldn't be an option.

Period.