I just read an article about that Al-Awacki guy...

[Archae]

(No doubt I spelled his name wrong.)

Based on only what he was doing, (allegedly,) I have no sympathy for him, and don't mind in the least him getting a Hellfire missile up his ass.

Now that's *IF* it is true that he was recruiting suicide bombers, and such that Obama says he was doing.

If we are being lied to (again) then who can we trust? Anyone?

[Live and Learn]

1. Not sure your sympathy or lack of it is really relevant.

It is not right and it is a very slippery slope.

[LeftInTX]

2. There was Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16 year old son

Both were US citizens. Both were killed by drones in Yemen. (I think)
Anwar was a terrorist and a target of the drone. His son was not. I'm not sure if they were killed during the same drone strike or not. Anyway, his son's death was "accidental". By accidental, it means that his son was not the target and he happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[sabrina 1]

3. What terrorist act did Anwar commit? People have asking this for a long time but with

no response. Regardless, democracies do not assassinate people without even charging them with a crime.

Awlaki was a radical preacher. He also at one time during the Bush years, was invited to dinner as a representative of the Muslim community who, it was decided, could help the Bush administration to better communicate with Muslims. It's interesting that he went from a 'friend' to an 'enemy' so quickly.

He also had opposed publicly the 9/11 attacks which apparently he was angry about.

However, I have searched for some evidence that he was a 'terrorist' and have found nothing other than he was saying things that were anti-US. If saying things against the US gets you on the 'kill list' we'll have an awful lot of people to kill.

I prefer the system some democracies still have where if you are suspected and accused of a crime you are tried and the public gets to see all the evidence against you. I've never been impressed with countries that just murder people and claim there is a good reason but it has to be secret for national security reasons.

But I must be old-fashioned or something because Americans no longer seem to think there is any need for due process, just kill them all and 'we'll be safe'.

What I want to know is how many more do we have to kill before we are safe? We've been doing it now for more than a dozen years and they tell us we are no more safe than we were when we started.

And how can we be safe from all of our own terrorists, or 'mass murderers' as we like to call those who are not Muslims. Should we be droning them too, before they do anything, and how can we know what they might do before the do it?

All I know is I don't feel any more safe than I ever did, I wonder if anyone does? Seems to me Americans are way more scared after all this killing than they used to be.

[bhikkhu]

5. This would be a fairly neutral place to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

One of the differences in how he was treated is that he wasn't so much on the wrong side of the law, but he was on the wrong side of a war. He aided and abetted a group we have been at war with, and so was treated the same as any combatant in any war, more or less, allowing for technological advances.

[Bonobo]

4. An Article! Well that settles it!

Think of the money we can save on courts!

All we need is an article, after the fact.

BTW, do you support paying restitution for the death of the son? I mean, it was an accident, right? Surely that means some restitution is in order if not a trial or grand jury which I think should be needed at a bare minimum.

[Egalitarian Thug]

6. Why is it so hard for you to understand that it's not about your sympathy or belief?

It's not whether he did whatever the appointed spokesman for the people that matter says he did this week or not. It's about power and who has it. We don't.