All I hear as justification for Obama killing him is that he was a propagandist. Well he was an American citizen and we have constitutional protections for speaking our minds and even writing those thoughts down and sharing them. If that is all he did for Al Quaeda, then doesn't this set a precedent that could potentially come back to bite the America media? They seem to be all caught up in the "due process" constitutional argument when it seems to me that the "freedom of speech" argument might be just as strong. If he direct incited crimes against the U.S. then I can see where there may be an exception to the freedom of speech right that would allow the action taken, but it doesn't seem that the MSM understands the potential implications to them directly! I'm just curious, what do you think? Could this potentially have implications for political bloggers and media? http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/1001/Anwar-al-Awlaki-Is-killing-US-born-terror-suspects-legal
I have to disagree and say that he did have Constitutional rights but he should not have had any rights. He should have been tried for treason and stripped of his citizenship before he was targeted. Our community organizer in chief is doing more damage to our country than Al Awlaki has done. Barry should be charged with treason and stripped of his citizenship too. Sure, if Barry can kill an American who has not had any process at all then he can kill any of us.
Just for clarification, did you disagree with my post or Obama's decision? I agree with this. Who is the check and balance peice to make sure politicakl targets aren't taken out?
I agree that Barry was wrong to kill an American citizen without any process even though he lived abroad most of his life and only returned to America to go to school. Al Awlaki could have been charged and convicted of treason easily. Bush should have done it long ago but Barry's boys should have done it before they killed an American citizen. Once convicted of treason he would not be a citizen and could be hit legally.
He was 40 years old. He only lived in Yemen for 11 years prior to 2004... so that is 17 years. He lived in the UK from 02 to 04 when he decided the US Govt was too "hostile" towards him. So, about half of his life was spent overseas. Just being clear.
Most dictators have to arrest and maybe shoot a few journalists in order to control the media. But President Zero is lucky to have lib news media that already shares his goal of suspending the Constitution and imposing a leftwing dictatorship.
Al Awlaki left America when he was 7, in 1978. He returned in 1991 and stayed until 2002. That is about 18 years that he was here, if it matters. He was preaching death to America for the last 11 years that he was here so he was committing treason and for sure could have been tied for treason after he helped two of the 9/11 terrorists.
If barking out hatred for America and all she stands for is grounds for treason, almost every liberal mouthpiece in America could be found guilty of treason. I'm just sayin.
again... about half his life... he wasn't in Yemen according to the wiki past 11 yrs, but you are right, the dates don't add up. He didn't start preaching death to America till 2002... and had cooperated with FBI trying to bridge relations between the govt and muslims after 9/11... till he got all jew crazy and started the crazy talk. The Yemen govt had him for over a year, and FBI interviewed him, and took no issue with his release... They would have given him up. He didn't become hot until late 2009 because his name kept cropping up everywhere, and he was very good at recruiting. We didn't charge him with treason. We didn't charge him for jaywalking. We just took him out under executive order. Not a good guy, not a good decision by the White House either.
