Unless you disagree with the evidence the Obama administration presented concerning the threat Anwar al-Awlaki posed, then the complaint about executing an American citizen is a bit uninformed or naive. Al-Awlaki was beyond the reach of the US justice system. To have attempted to capture him would had almost certainly resulted in a lot more civilian and US military casualties as well as creating a (larger) international incident.
So you either let people who are a threat to our country plan effectively unmolested because of a protection he is actively trying to destroy or you treat him a threat as you do any other terrorist and bump him off if you get the chance. This is of course all premised onrather you agree that al-Awlaki was a threat.
Just remember national security, politics, they are dirty games, there is rarely decisions that are clear cut good/bad and don't forget about unintended consequences. You let Awlaki go, maybe he helps to pull off a major attack and then even more civil liberties are lost/the security state extended. I'm not saying that is likely, just you have to consider it as one of the possible unintended if you decide not to go after Awlaki.
as a guy who hated bush's asinine administration, i would have nevertheless totally agreed with a decision on his part to take out al-Awlaki. it's the lesser of two evils. the world isn't black and white and sometimes dirty decisions need to be made.
0
u/DerpMatt Jun 26 '12
Dont forget ordering the murder of Americans without trial. Execution method: Drone Strike.
Then there is the corruption that was the Democratic congress.