Question for the State Dep’t: Can the feds invite a U.S. citizen to the local embassy for the purpose of killing him?
posted at 9:21 pm on November 28, 2012 by Allahpundit
Via Politico. The reporter asking the question isn’t shown, but surely you recognize the voice. Sure you do.
Consider this of a piece with my Greenroom post earlier about strange, dark questions raised by long years at war. The impetus for this one is the news that the State Department tried to reach out somehow to Anwar al-Awlaki in March 2011 and invite him to the embassy in Yemen to formally notify him that his passport had been revoked. Minor problem: The New York Times had reported 11 months earlier that Obama had marked him for death. Go figure that he politely declined State’s invite to appear in person before them. As Politico notes, this was probably some sort of half-assed gesture at due process from the White House, to give him the option of surrendering peacefully and coming home to face (unspecified) charges instead of facing a rendezvous with a Predator. The fact that he was already very publicly known to be targeted for assassination, however, tends to … complicate the surrender process.
Actually, I’m not so sure the notification about his passport was a due process gesture at all. I think it may have been State’s way of symbolically casting him out of the United States, which isn’t equivalent to revoking his citizenship but makes the optics of targeting him for terrorism theoretically less squirm-inducing. He’s still technically an American, but he’s barred from entering America and therefore something of an outlaw. And you know what happens to outlaws.
Related Posts:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Because “I won”
GWB on May 16, 2013 at 3:07 PM
Smoke and mirrors.
antisocial on May 16, 2013 at 3:09 PM
The State Run Media will still love him in morning…
d1carter on May 16, 2013 at 3:12 PM
US Department of 57 States
burrata on May 16, 2013 at 3:13 PM
Well, it’s good to know that, in addition to Holder knowing next to nothing, the stuff he does know is totally wrong.
Dusty on May 16, 2013 at 3:23 PM
I recall all of the many leaks during the Bush years. Leaks that actually damaged national security on many occasions. Not to mention the dubious “leak” of Valery Plame by Armitage that was investigated by a special prosecutor.
I don’t recall on any of those occasions the media’s phone records being subpoenaed. I’m not saying it never happened, I just don’t recall ever hearing about it happening.
This seems like a fairly trivial leak in comparison (a leak about a victory that everyone knew was going to be announced by the WH anyway). In fact, this seems like the kind of routine leaking we see in DC all of the time.
So to claim this requires the subpoenaing of all the AP’s phone records defies credibility. The motive here is clear – to get the press back in line and show them who is boss.
You watch. There will never be any real investigation into who the leaker was and it will all be dropped – despite telling us how important it is to national security that this happen in the first place.
Monkeytoe on May 16, 2013 at 3:45 PM
The Ohio State University
dominigan on May 16, 2013 at 4:02 PM
The answer is simple – The AP used a narrative that did not jive with Team SCOAMT’s assertions that Al Qaeda was dead along with Osama bin Laden. As for the delays, the delay in investigating was because Team SCOAMT needed the AP on board the Presstitute Organ Train until after the election, and the further delay in telling the AP it was being investigated is the Chitcago Way.
Steve Eggleston on May 16, 2013 at 4:07 PM
Had they still called it an Al Qeada plot timed to “commemorate” bin Laden’s killing, you’re damn right they would have still been investigated.
Steve Eggleston on May 16, 2013 at 4:11 PM
Sheesh, I was saying yesterday that this looked like retaliation for not playing ball and sacrificing a scoop to Obama’s propaganda machine. That is the way Barry and Eric and David roll.
novaculus on May 16, 2013 at 4:12 PM
They were trading hummus recipes?
workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 4:15 PM
The timing is interesting… just a few hours before the attack was the meeting with the Turkish Minister.
Makes you wonder what he learned during that meeting.
A suspicious mind might almost start thinking that the entire ‘terrorist attack’ was a hit job: no follow-up to get the obvious terrorists at coffee houses months afterwards, no indictments from the lovely FBI, no reprisals against the group that did it. A very suspicious mind might just think that Amb. Stevens was set-up to be killed for what he knew that the Administration didn’t want getting out.
It is the Chicago Way, after all.
ajacksonian on May 16, 2013 at 4:23 PM
If all of that is about the AP not giving the WH its moment in the sun to brag… then they really are petty children.
Karmashock on May 16, 2013 at 4:24 PM
Consider that perhaps the story about the leak of this al Qaeda plot justifying this seizure of phone records is a complete lie. It was a convenient justification that they thought no one would question.
It sounds bizarre, but it’s a very simple explanation, and given the mendacity of this administration it’s very believable.
So what were they really looking for with such a broad and deep seizure of records? What was going on in that period of time that the administration wanted so badly to know about?
slickwillie2001 on May 16, 2013 at 4:32 PM
Do we really want to buy the administration’s line that this was about national security and a foiled terror plot? They lied and lied and lied about Benghazi being sparked by a YouTube video, so why would they tell us the truth about this. Look deeper. What information were they really after?
bitsy on May 16, 2013 at 4:54 PM
My vote is Valerie Jarrett. The AP & IRS scandals have her stench all over them.
MississippiMom on May 16, 2013 at 5:41 PM
Rep. Louie Gohmert on the AP scandal, finally someone has said what needs to be said:
When there is a tyrannical despot the media will be one of the early victims
Axion on May 16, 2013 at 5:44 PM
this press really is like a battered wife. they keep going back. currently they are running stories claiming an “angry 0bama fires head of IRS” when its been well known since last nite the guy was leaving next month anyway.
chasdal on May 16, 2013 at 5:45 PM
Does anybody believe a word that Eric Holder says..?
d1carter on May 16, 2013 at 6:29 PM
Wonder if the lsm is worried about what a real investigation would be like if they actually leaked a real serious top two in Holder’s view kinda leak? Since he doesn’t seem to spend a lot of time behind his desk, how would he know if there was a top two in his lifetime kinda leak that had been leaked anyways? Oh, yeah, he could find out by watching CNN.
Kissmygrits on May 16, 2013 at 6:42 PM
The AP was being the lap dogs by holding the story but they got too excited about the story and a victory for there master of a failed plot, that they peed on the lap.
tjexcite on May 16, 2013 at 6:45 PM
Fifty thousand IRS thugs cannot enforce a law that one hundred million people simply refuse to obey….especially if that one hundred million have guns. Apologies to Gandhi or whoever first came up with that.
Oldnuke on May 16, 2013 at 7:36 PM
Lap dogs get eaten first in this Administration.
You don’t have to chase them.
ajacksonian on May 16, 2013 at 8:45 PM
I was wondering if I was too cynical when I think they really did not care so much about the leaker as they were interested in what conversations they were having with congress people? Glad to see I am not the only one.
KW64 on May 16, 2013 at 8:46 PM
We all know the National Security Card was played to cover the real reason they were tapping the AP. They wanted to know what the AP was investigating. Chavez might have died but his spirit lives on in the man we know as Obama.
James on May 16, 2013 at 9:19 PM
I’ve decided that from here on I will refer to the AG as Epic Hodor. He is one of the supporting characters in Obama’s #GameOfScandals.
CitizenEgg on May 17, 2013 at 7:00 AM
At the heart of all the emerging ‘scandals’ – IRS targeting specific groups, secret AP phone records, Benghazi cover-up, and who knows what else might come to light – is this:
Obama’s ambition, to win a second term presidency, not on his own merit. Just like his winning the first term, nothing he has done deserves ‘the prize’.
ALL of the scandals (so far) can be traced back to Obama himself.
Sir Napsalot on May 17, 2013 at 7:57 AM
Seeing those two twits pictured together, I can understand how some could go “racist”.
SpiderMike on May 18, 2013 at 11:26 AM
If I’m the AP, I have my interns call every number at State, Defense, Justice, and CIA twice a day from here on out to provide cover.
goatweed on May 19, 2013 at 9:15 AM
Or is that concealment? Can’t keep them straight.
goatweed on May 19, 2013 at 9:16 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2