He was a legitimate military target in an ongoing war.

barred from seeing the evidence against him that would allow for his assassination.

Oh there is a leak here and a leak there, and outrage over his anti-American speeches (which is protected political speech, by the way.) Hell, it appears that Yemenis barely knew who he was until the CIA put a target on his back.

And this ongoing talking point that "Well, we don't REALLY know if he did anything!" is bullshit. Besides his openly broadcast exhortations to murder, his conviction in Yemen for conspiracy to commit murder in the death of a French citizen, and his open claims of responsibility in several attempted attacks, it's asinine to continue trying to claim that "it's only cuz the Evil Big Gubmint says he was bad!"

it's violent speech...a call to action to commit political assassination.

should those american citizens also be drone targets?

that hasn't resulted in strategic drone attacks.

Hell, Ann Coulter suggested that terrorists take out the NY Times! Oh no. Not protected speech at all.

it happens, not necessarily to them, but to someone. We've taken the first awful step in the wrong direction. Now the next one has been taken, drones in the skies of the US. Step by step is how it happens.

Now that we have followed the Bush administration down that dark path, nothing would surprise me, and depending on which party goes there first, it will be defended by the followers of the party in power. For some, as we saw during the Bush years, so long as it was their guy doing it, they turned a blind eye and we slammed them, rightfully, for their blind allegiance.

Thankfully it is really just a few on the 'Left' who have flipped to now support these egregious Bush policies. I am grateful for the many, many voices raised in defense of what all of our elected officials swore to defend, the laws of this country.

Once this country gets back on the right track, History will not be kind to those who veered into the territory we are now heading towards. You would think they would consider their legacies at least, if not their oaths of office. This is a very bad period in our history with now, both parties refusing to stand up for what this country is really all about. Terrorists, who needs them when we throw away our freedoms without any help at all. All for political purposes, the worst kind of excuse.

well, unless the endgame is to have perpetual war.

seems like those of us who're liberal in the traditional meaning of the word, have spent years discussing how little "sense" our party displays. they're obviously serving someone's interest...most likely their own...so, these non-sensical policies really do have reason behind them. it just seems irrational to those who assume our interests align, while our interests obviously don't align.

None that I heard of. And advocating killing of THAT American seems to go unchallenged. So, again, his guilt was decided by an Executive branch fiat. And his conviction (in absentia) in a Yemeni court is laughable. Do have the slightest clue as to how corrupt and decidedly un-American the Yemeni judicial system is? Next thing you know, you'll be lauding the North Korean judicial system! And if everything the Evil Big Gubmint (unclear as to why you decided to use baby talk in an otherwise adult conversation) says is true, then the place to make that case is, transparently, in a court of law. Not with little dribbles of leaked info and authoritarian sayso.

Are you going to argue that that guy was unlawfully executed because they should have given him a trial while he was eating another man's face? A violent criminal resisting arrest by the police has the options to either surrender, or likely get themselves killed. That's hardly the new and terrifying precedent you're trying to make it out to be, and in fact you have to rewrite a lot of circumstances of the case in order to claim that it is, like pretending that he was just some random guy minding his own business and not a self-declared attempted murderer.

based on a photo and a file.

b/c, i don't see the connection.

to, um, putting Manson on trial and convicting him of directing murders.
I don't have to rewrite a thing.

There have been thousands of drone strikes and none of them, not one, involved someone either eating a US citizens face off or pointing a gun at anyone in the US.

The OP centers on Awlaki as he was an American citizen and presumably protected under the Bill of Rights. The "thousands of drone strikes" were against foreigners. Any Americans caught in those strikes would be "incidental."

Awlaki, OTOH, was deliberately targeted. The debate is whether an America, who by his own public admission, is waging war on the US is entitled to the rights afforded him under the BoR. Some say no, Mr Greenwald seems to say regardless it sets a dangerous precedent.

I trust Obama but he won't be president forever. I'm genuinely ambivalent.

from any particular President and the Presidency. Power granted to one is freely given to all, there is not so much as an iota of sequestration. If you wouldn't trust power in the hands of Nixon, Reagan, or BushCo (arguable all the same effective entity) then you don't trust Obama, Carter, or Kennedy with the power because if you do you surely give it with the same hands to the crew that cannot be trusted.

Getting caught up in the individuals is not rational or is following a set of rules that do not actually exist in the real world.
History indicates more potential for harm will always be created than good because more harmful hands will hold it and abuse their stewardship. This is why good people that agreed deeply with FDR didn't support him on stacking the bench, the precedent would be too dangerous and absurd.

Throughout our history, several American citizens have called for the death of various Americans, and have suffered no legal penalty for their speech. Here is but the latest example. Sure, sure, he is suffering some embarrassment and negative publicity, but that's certainly better than a drone dropping one on you.

So what's the difference? One is a radical Muslim, the other is a radical Christian Can we start using drones to attack radical Christians in Kansas? After all, they're calling for the death of Americans.

This wasn't a matter of being punished for a previous crime. Awlaki was a leader in an ongoing conflict. That made him a legitimate military target.

Some Government official unilaterally declared Alwaki was a target and you accept that without challenge.

Hundreds of innocent lives have been lost by these targeted killings.

drone assassination campaigns. Nothing. It exposes only your inability to defend your position without resorting to arguments of deflection.

Handwaver?

You seem to think the war on terror is as a legitimate war as WWII. The war on terror, as designed and defined by bush and carried on by Obama is not the same as WWII. The war on terror is more akin to the war on drugs. It is a fiction propagated by fear.

Once you realize that, you can open your eyes and distinguish civilians deaths.

Congress passed it, and Obama is obligated to carry it out.

As long as you keep your eyes shut about that basic fact, we won't be getting anywhere.

It was a blank check for open-ended, ill-defined, anywhere in the world war on US terms. It was written by REPUBLICANS for BUSH!

If you are comfortable embracing that, go for it. I remember when Democrats and liberals stood against the AUMF and the Patriot Act and unilateral strikes in foreign countries. Now, we are all for it, huh?

You remember things differently from me. I remember most of America, Democrats and Republicans, supporting action against Al Qaeda. Fucking it up in Afghanistan and then invading Iran wasn't supported by Democrats, myself included. I definitely remember demonstrating against the Iraq invasion back when that was happening.

But the AUMF? No, that's real. Time for you to deal.

Like I said, if that is where you hang your hat, you are stuck in stale ginned up fear. Obama is using it as a giant loophole to carry out covert wars without any oversight. That is the problem.

"without any oversight." That's bullshit.

Look into the history of it with the Supreme Court and Congress trying to save it. It is a mess and full of potential constitutional violations. Honestly, if someone could claim standing, I believe the Supreme Court would rule against Obama on his tactics, particularly in regard to American citizens.

FTFY.

you can't wage war on a tactic. Declaring war on terror is a little akin to declaring war on tanks - both may give you a little (cheap) catharsis, but your enemy in either case cannot surrender.

is called on you.

Unfortunately it'll be too late then.

and we're laying one hell of a claim to the low ground.

We may pull most of our troops out of Afghanistan after two more years of killing and being killed, but I haven't seen anyone suggest that he'll stop the drone strikes. In fact, it seems that they are the weapon of choice. It's such a more sanitized way to kill, don't you think?

Whether the AUMF is repealed by then remains to be seen. I certainly think there's a case to be made for it. Why don't we make it and get the AUMF repealed?

Yes, drone attacks are a more sanitized way of killing compared to sending in troops, napalming, nuclear weapons, etc.

Drone strikes are carried out by a unitary executive, which was the desired way of Cheney. Cheney would be proud of Obama, taking his mantle. Carrying out long term bombing campaigns in countries of the Executive's choice without oversight of Congress. They hardly even acknowledge what they have done or are doing.

You use "unitary executive" in a scary way. I don't think you understand what that means.

A good case could be made that the US brought this on itself. That's what happens when you are an imperial super power throwing your weight around. You piss people off and they figure out a way to fight back.

I disagree with you on that.

Malcolm X spoke of it, as did King, among so many others. How we have treated the other people on this planet that we all share has been shameful, disgusting, murderous even. And sooner or later somebody was bound to strike back. Justified or not, I mean damn, it was obvious as hell that it was going to happen.

You reap what you sow, and we have sowed death and destruction around the world. Sooner or later we were going to have to bring home that bitter harvest.

Now that we have, perhaps we should learn a lesson from all of this, and change our ways. Otherwise we're simply going to continue to harvest the same bitter crop. Drones and bombs won't end terrorism, it creates terrorists, people who are simply pissed off enough to act. Kindness and compassion, that would produce a much more bountiful harvest of peace.

to make him a friend."

Words we would do well to heed.

to think of it.

We're going to have a substanial presence in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future.

We're going to keep on creating new radicalized recruits to fight against us. Then they will attack us, so we will have to attack them, and, hey, it's the perfect game. Perpetual, sel-generating war on terror. Yay.

We've killed over one million human beings, don't you think we've killed enough people, the vast majority of them civilians, men, women and a disturbing number of beautiful, innocent children. Would you like to see some photos of the 'terrorists' we've been killing? Bush policies, there was not a single one that was not an egregious violation of the US Constitution and International law, including the AUMF, which as pushed through Congress based on LIES. Unbelievable to see these horrendous policies defended now when for eight years they opposed, and Glenn Greenwald who throughout the Bush years was a hero to the Left, is saying now exactly what he was saying then, AFTER he realized the lies they told.

I demonstrated against it as a matter of fact.

And Glenn Greenwald was not a hero to the Left throughout the Bush years. In fact, Greenwald supported the Iraq invasion and occupation.

Americans, could not conceive of a President lying to them about something as important as war, so he believed the lies. But then, when he learned the facts did not remain silent about what he discovered. The MSM however, and all their 'respected journalists' remained silent even after the lies became obvious. Those who did not, were fired and had their careers destroyed, like Ashley Banfield eg. It was more advantageous on a personal level at that time, to keep on pretending to believe the lies. I'm sure we'll never see him on the MSM. Being too willing to tell the truth is a career ender sadly. Ask Dan Rather, or Donohue. So yes, it took guts to stand up back then and it was people like him who made it easier for others over time, to finally speak out.

who have died prematurely from violence occasioned by the US invasion and occupation, there are 2 million Iraqis who have been wounded (many horribly disfigured) and another 2 million Iraqis who have been displaced either internally or made refugees externally to Jordan.

Total: 5 million Iraqs or about 20% of the pre-war population of 25 million.

Take that 20% statistic and apply it to America and you would be looking at 45-50 million Americans killed, wounded or displaced.

from the sanctions before the invasion. Also the future generations being born with birth defects from the chemicals rained down on their country.

We never get news from Iraq, but there have been demonstrations there against the policies of the puppet government, Iraqis joining Egyptians and Tunisians, and were met with force also, in the 'democracy' we created, 29 killed by the government, they were unarmed, peaceful, like the others, while hundreds were arrested and taken away to who knows what fate.

I don't know if any effort has been made to help those millions who were displaced to return to their homes. Dahr Jamail has written about them, living in refugee camps, and photographed that part of the disaster. But we don't talk about those things. My cousin had visited Iraq before the invasion. He loved the people, who he said were very welcoming to visitors. He returned about a year ago and said the country is destroyed. It was crime of massive proportions and the perpetrators need to be prosecuted. Maybe some day.

in the Arab world, second only to Israel in the entire Middle East.

What we have done to that country will ring ignominy upon us down through the ages. That's after we're done escaping the ignominy rained down upon us for what we did in Southeast Asia, 1945-75. And after we've escaped the ignominy of what we did in El Salvador, Nicaragua, and other Latin American states from 1981-90.

We have as a people incurred a huge karmic debt.

Thanks for your input.

I'll have to call the police on you.

Please get your facts straight.

but he was killed in total secrecy with no oversight. that's the point.

No, you don't, neither do I. That's the problem with this whole sad fucking farce, the only people who do know aren't talking, and these are our democratically elected leaders in what is supposed to be an open government process.

Because the administration isn't talking. They don't talk at all about this program, that's the whole damn point. The only knowledge that we have are anonymous sources, people who know people, and nothing from a true, honest source. It could just as easily be that al-Banna was collateral damage and Alwaki's son was indeed the real target. Get it, we simply don't know, and that is the problem. Extra-judicial trial and execution, in secret, with no oversight. That's not only undemocratic, that's UnAmerican.

No, just me for saying it was Al-Banna. OK, good to know.

Anyway, I'm not chiding you for saying Al-Banna was the target, what I am pointing out is that we simply don't know. What, you don't know basic conversational English? What part of "It could just as easily be that al-Banna was collateral damage and Alwaki's son was indeed the real target. Get it, we simply don't know, and that is the problem." don't you understand?

Or is this your new sneaky strawman plan, sticking words in my mouth?

Dude, you might as well be pissing on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Own your words!

You know, you can get help for that.

Good to know.

similar proceeding).

WILL NOT REVEAL THE TARGET OR SPEAK OF KILLING A 16 YEAR OLD U.S. CITIZEN.

So you are not a US citizen, Luminous? OK, good to know.

Whenever you are presented with damning facts that you can't deny, poof, you pull out another strawman. It would be entertaining in a bad-magician-at-work sort of way except that it is so damn annoying, and so very predictable.

It's something I didn't know. Now I do.

Your own government. My own government. Our own government.

What a weird conclusion to draw to try to make a gotchya.

If I'm speaking to someone I know to be an American and we're discussing the government, I don't even think about word choice. I say "our government" or "the government." It wouldn't occur to me to say "your own government" because it's my government, too.

If you are a US citizen, then I apologize. It was a weird word choice for you to make in that case, but whatever.

Can you at least state that?

It's certainly not worth all the hemming and hawing you're giving it. You either are or you aren't.