Remember when Republicans said Obama was "soft on terrorism."
Here is the response:
First, the US has killed more suspected high level members of al-Qaeda using predator drone strikes in President Obama's first three years than we did under President Bush did in eight years.
Second, President Obama drew down troops in Iraq and ordered a surge of troops in Afghanistan in order to increase the odds of victory there so that we can get out in the next two years.
Third, Obama created the team and the authorized the specific mission that killed Usama bin Laden (UBL).
The only problem is, he was an American citizen. And he was killed without trial.
I am not saying this is right or wrong, only that it is an issue worth addressing. And yet, in this story in the mainstream press, there is no mention of it. Yes, they say he was an American citizen, but they do not even raise the issue of what are the implications for Constitutional rights in the war on terrorism.
(For the record, I did write a letter to the editor calling on President Obama to respect the Constitutional rights of all Americans in such cases, which would require capturing Americans suspected of terrorism and giving them trials, assuming they were not killed during capture).
However you feel about the issue--frankly, I can see both sides of the argument--it is still sad that we are sacrificing certain rights in order to achieve victory in this war.
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” -- Benjamin Franklin, 1755
And not a word about it in the press.