I know I will get flamed for this post but what is bothering me most is not the fact that this guy was “dirty” and might have deserved to be executed but that a clear set of legal gates should have been passed through. This is called due process and it is preeminent to congressional authority under the fifth amendment of our constitution which forbids the taking of a citizens life without due process. I think you lay out a compelling case for justifying the action and you have cited many factual points which I do believe if presented before a court would be damning but nonetheless that due process was not followed. I guess I am more concerned about the precedent of this action than the result. Let me reemphasize that I am grateful the threat is neutralized but I really fear it has opened a Pandora's box for further extrajudicial actions this WH might choose.
posted on 10/02/2011 10:08:45 AM PDT
(Righteousness is our cause and justice will prevail!)
7thof7th: I understand your concerns, and they are good ones that one can have without being soft on terrorism.
The bottom line is that there is no due process for those who take up arms militarily against the United States.
Obama acted within congressional authorization to wage war on AQ. Had he schwacked this turd in a turban as he peacefully walked the streets of London it would be a different story altogether. As it was, Awlaki was carrying out AQ military operations against the nation of Yemen (who invited us in), and he paid the price.
posted on 10/02/2011 10:33:33 AM PDT
(Stand With The Heroes, Fight The Zeroes!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson