One of the interesting things that came out of the 9/11 aftermath was the scrutiny of the Clinton administration's handling of Osama bin Laden in the 1990s. In one interview about the matter, Clinton defended his hands-off approach by suggesting that the U.S. government could not deal with him when the Saudi government offered to hand him over to the U.S., because "we had no evidence that he was ever directly involved in attacks against the U.S." (or something to that effect). This was at the same time (maybe even in the same interview) when he rationalized his decision to issue pardons to those FALN terrorists from New York City by claiming that "they weren't directly involved in making the bombs used in those attacks" (again, or something to that effect).
All this leads me to ask one very simple question: What evidence did anyone in the U.S. government have that this guy in Yemen was a threat to the U.S. that warranted such a response?
The second part of that question is: What was it about that threat that precluded the U.S. government from pursuing normal legal or military avenues against him?
Well, for one he was tried en absentia in a Yemeni Court, convicted and had a “capture dead or alive” order out for him.
They thought he was guilty, he was hiding in their country and we are assisting them in anti terror work.
That works for me.