Let’s give partial credit where it is due. Apparently the Obama administration argues that al-Awlaki was a legitimate target because he is a member of an enemy engaged in hostile conduct against the United States. At least Obama has figured out that the war on terrorism is in fact a war, and that it is not limited just to Afghanistan. We should be thankful that Obama officials have quietly put aside the arguments they made during the Bush years that any terrorist outside the Afghani battlefield was a criminal suspect who deserved his day in federal court. By my lights, I would rather the Obama folks be hypocrites in favor of protecting the national security than principled fools (which they are free to be in the faculty lounges both before and after their time in government).
Let’s hope the “after” comes soon.
Still trying to figure out how participation in the “Eagle Squadrons” during WWII jeopardized US citizenship, but participation in Al Qaeda during GWOT has no bearing on citizenship. As far as I’m concerned, Al-Awlaki renounced his citizenship. The only value of calling him a citizen would be in a trial for treason. I think there’s an easy way to handle the treason discussion. Did the person use the pretense of being a citizen to do harm to the US? Otherwise, in both cases, you are dealing with an enemy combatant during a time of war.
Isn’t “the Administration’s strange reasoning” redundant?
Apologizing to the family of Samir Khan for being killed adds to the ridiculousness. The administration seems to be taking the position that the actions of Samir Khan did not merit a drone strike while those of Anwar al-Awlaki did.
For the most part Obama has been avoiding the possibility of any trials or the need for a place like GITMO buy just killing people. What is worse a stint at GITMO or death by drone?