October 07, 2011
WTF? State Apologizes to Dead Terrorist's Family (Updated)
I'm not sure if I should be laughing at this or getting really, really pissed off.
On the one hand, we pay the State Department to lie. And, if saying you're sorry for killing a terrorist isn't a lie, then I don't know what is!
On the other hand, what if Obama and Clinton's State Department really were sorry they killed the al Qaeda propagandist and self-styled proud traitor?
If that's the America we live in, then it's time to pack it in and call it quits. I hear France is nice this time of year, and at least they are right up front about their disdain for America.
"They were very apologetic (for not calling the family sooner) and offered condolences," Jibril Hough said about the Thursday call from the State Department to Khan's father, Zafar....So, we kill a terrorist and then we .... apologize to the family for killing the terrorist? What's next, paying the parents of suicide bombers, like Hamas and Fatah?
Hough said the Thursday conversation lasted a few minutes. "It wasn't just 'I'm sorry' and hang-up," said Hough, who added that the phone call included no discussion of the status or condition of Khan's remains.
Please tell me this is part of some larger duplicity which leads to the entire Kahn family being deported and/or indicted?
I've always had a rather low opinion of State. But after this, I'm left to wonder which side of the War on Terror they're really pulling for?
UPDATE: Thanks to AllahP over at Hot Air for the hat tip.
Let me just respond to one thing AllahP says:
They’re being careful to draw a distinction between people like Awlaki, whom the White House suspected of operational planning, and Khan, who appears to have been exclusively a propagandist...The argument he is making, I think, isn't that Khan didn't deserve to die -- he did -- but that the Obama administration is pandering to the base which has taken to calling the killings of Awlaki and Kahn "the assassination of American citizens by the President."
If they’re targeting people only for their rhetoric, no matter how toxic that might be, it puts them on even thinner ice with civil libertarians given the very high bar for dangerous speech under the First Amendment
What I want to point out to readers who may not know the background on Khan is that what he published was not just fiery rhetoric in support of al Qaeda. No, he published actual bomb making instructions. Khan's bomb making instructions were followed by Naser Abdo, who was arrested before he could detonate the bomb near Fort Hood.
So, even under our rather broadly protective post-Brandenburg 1st Amendment jurisprudence what Khan was advocating would not be protected since his publications did actually incite people to violence -- which was exactly his point.
For crissake, this was a guy who advocated killing American civilians in malls and nightclubs!
If this is the base that Obama's State Department is pandering to -- one that cannot distinguish a traitor from ordinary citizens -- then God help us.