Monday, September 14, 2009
Nabhan bites the dust
Fox News reports on a successful Special Operations raid in Somalia:
"Navy Seals from US Special Operations Forces conducted a raid in southern Somalia on Monday that killed Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, one of 4 co-conspirators wanted in the 2002 bombing of an Israel owned hotel in Mombasa, Kenya, two senior U.S. military officials told Fox News.While there was not much enthusiasm from commenters here for giving credit to President Obama after the pirate standoff ended, since there was some question about whether the White House specifically authorized force in April or simply permitted the ROEs to stay in place (after some delay), the signing of an EO in this case leaves little doubt. So, props to President Obama for approving the whacking of this terrorist.
"Ten days ago President Obama signed the Execute Order for Nabhan, who since 2006 was on the FBI's list of most wanted terrorists. He was also wanted for the attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Kenya in 1998."
CWCID: Ace
12 Comments:
By 
, at
Tue Sep 15, 05:10:00 AM:
Certainly better the Obama way, drone attacks with collateral deaths or Navy seal attacks. Rest assured that these folks were first offered lawyers, read their Miranda rights and offered the choice of the ultimate evil torture-- waterboarding and they chose to be blown to smitherines?? Thanks Barry for not resorting to the methods of the evil Bush/Cheney/Halliburton days. Of course no protests from the lefty loons either.
By , at
Tue Sep 15, 09:07:00 AM:
"Obama signed the Executive Order." Sounds like micromanagement to me. Shades of LBJ and VietNam.
JLW III
By 
Georg Felis, at
Tue Sep 15, 09:28:00 AM:
Countdown to Leftist Outrage in 3..2..1... (crickets chirping)
By , at
Tue Sep 15, 09:57:00 AM:
"Execute" order? I confess I was unaware the President could order the execution of someone without upending Executive orders 11905 and 12333. It heartens me if this policy has changed, but I think it ought to be bigger news if it has changed as your post suggests.
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue Sep 15, 10:18:00 AM:
Assassination, not execution. Execution is judicial.
EO 11905 prohibits political assassinations, and 12333 requires a Presidential Finding for other assassinations, and there has been speculation that President Bush secretly amended 12333 with concern to terrorist suspects. (because doing a separate PF for every single al-Qaeda and Taliban shitbag we've incinerated in Afghanistan is just silly) But no, nothing has publicly changed since Obama came to office.
By , at
Tue Sep 15, 10:58:00 AM:
Bush did refine policy on assassinations, apparently though only in instances of declared war. Since Obama has abandoned the "war" aspect of the battle against al Qaeda, only using the term in connection with formal military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, the distinction isn't in play here. In short, your post doesn't add to understanding the basis on which Obama did this. Someone in the news business should ask Gates, assuming someone still is in the news business. Maybe Tapper.
By , at
Tue Sep 15, 11:00:00 AM:
The way Bill Roggio describes the op, it sounds extraordinarily well planned. Good intelligence. Very impressive.
By , at
Tue Sep 15, 11:09:00 AM:
To be fair, I don't recall anybody on the Left getting upset because of killing of any specific terrorist during Bush years.
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue Sep 15, 11:37:00 PM:
"Bush did refine policy on assassinations, apparently though only in instances of declared war."
The US hasn't declared war since 1941.
"...I don't recall anybody on the Left getting upset because of killing of any specific terrorist..."
Let's not parse words; I started hearing leftists bitch about assassinations of terrorists starting with the very first publicized Predator strike in Saudi (or Yemen? I forget... they were going from one to the other) in 2001. While they may not have complained about the death of any *specific* terrorist, the policy itself was roundly and consistently criticized by the self-appointed crusaders (irony) as an immoral form of terrorism itself. That we got the tactic from the Israelis was even more damning.
By davod, at
Wed Sep 16, 11:08:00 AM:
Why would this be called an assassination, political or otherwise, as opposed just a killing.
By , at
Wed Sep 16, 02:22:00 PM:
"Bush did refine policy on assassinations, apparently though only in instances of declared war."
The US hasn't declared war since 1941.
Exactly DF. I'm saying Obama is doing something different and more extensive than Bush did. Obama has somehow amended or revised existing Executive orders to allow for the political assissination he just countenanced: he's operating under different rules. This is big news, if he is.
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Sep 16, 09:43:00 PM:
*What* political assassinations?
