Breaking News: Osama Bin Laden Is Dead! - Part 4

[chaseter]

I do, The man declared war on the US and instructed others to attack us and how to do it. He was a traitor and he knew what he was getting into when he did those things.

This is how we should have been fighting terrorism from the start.

I agree. He is a traitor and is committing treasonous acts against his own country. He is aiding in the death of American citizens and the destruction of his country. It's riskier to let him go free in the hopes that you will eventually capture him alive someday. If Obama let him go free and he ended up killing more people, Obama would be skewered.

It's simple...would any of us have killed Hitler if we had the chance?

 

[DACrowe]

^ You have a point there, but I think it is still too convenient. Many things around Al-Awlaki weren't clear (his actual relationship to the 9/11 hijackers, his alleged invitation to the Pentagon -reported by no less than Fox New) and now it won't ever be clear. I get killing Osama and now Al-Awlaki this way is, to sum it up, more 'surgical'... but the supposed merits of inarticulating Al-Qaida remain to be seen. Osama was not calling the shots of the organization during all the years he was in Pakistan and yet the attack plans were being hatched. When all you do is take out the leaders, you can sit back and see how the cells regroup and new leaders emerge. The most fundamental problems that make them exist and recruit in the first place are not being addressed. Forget Al-Qaida... after the Arab spring, who says we won't have the new Hamas or the new Hezbollah?

The Arab Spring will end al-Qaeda's power faster than American policy over new recruitments. But these are people who have tried and will continue to try to kill Americans. If the opportunity arises to end them with a drone strike that avoids invading a foreign land....do it. It weakens the terrorist organizations in a way that does not reinforce the image of evil imperialist America like invading and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq have. But working with the new governments of the Arab Spring and trying to (finally) get a peace deal between Palestine and Israel--unlikely with Netanyahu in power, though--is the best way to secure long lasting peace in the area.

 

[Arya]

Do you think this is justice?

I do, The man declared war on the US and instructed others to attack us and how to do it. He was a traitor and he knew what he was getting into when he did those things.

This is how we should have been fighting terrorism from the start.

Yes I do. Who cares if he is American born? He is spreading propaganda to attack and kill Americans. That is treason and treason is punishable by death.

You may think that is a little black and white but let me put it in a question to pose to you. Would you rather let him go free because you cannot physically capture him to give a jury trial or would you rather him be dead from a rare chance at a drone strike to stop him from aiding in the killing of Americans?

By that logic, we should have assassinated King Abdullah, since the Saudi monarchy has been linked to many jihadists in the peninsula.
We should have also killed Pablo Escobar and strike a great victory in the War on Drugs.

I couldn't care less about his nationality, I care more about the potential benefits of just killing a person.
Maybe I'm alone on this, but I cannot conceive a justice that relies on assassinations and nothing more. Where is the process, the exposition of his true involvement and his true motivations, the arrangement of deal with the defendant that leads to a more definitive dismantling of the organization.
There are many more positive things that come from a due process.
Otherwise, you just launch a drone, drop a bomb, and that's it. Nothing more. The guy is dead. Big deal. There is no guarantee someone even worse will come along, or that his death won't be used to strengthen their radical base.

If there was absolutely no chance of getting to him in a fair assessment of risks... yeah, by all means, just kill the guy. But this is less than ideal. Now Osama and several lieutenants of his are dead and many people forgive every sin involved in their terminations, no matter what. It's like the President gets a free pass for killing them since all people wanted was blood. I didn't want blood, I wanted to understand what the heck was happening in order to hold the government accountable when they screwed up. Seems like that wasn't a priority, just like with the last government.

 

[DBryan]

He was an american citizen?

Wow.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

American Citizens are potentially capable of terrorism or evil? SINCE WHEN?!?

 

[Arya]

I agree. He is a traitor and is committing treasonous acts against his own country. He is aiding in the death of American citizens and the destruction of his country. It's riskier to let him go free in the hopes that you will eventually capture him alive someday. If Obama let him go free and he ended up killing more people, Obama would be skewered.

It's simple...would any of us have killed Hitler if we had the chance?

Traitors get a trial. Timothy McVeigh got one, didn't he?

I'm not so sure the government didn't let him go before. Who says they didn't kill him and Osama when their deaths were more politically profitable? Secret operations like these make it hard for me to trust the government a 100%.

Regarding Hitler... I'm sure you know he wasn't the cause. He didn't rise to power through lies. Everything he believed in was right there in Mein Kampf. Germans just wanted a radical guy to get payback and glory after the disaster of World War I. Killing Hitler would just would have given the national-socialist German zeitgeist a martyr. Big whoop.

The Arab Spring will end al-Qaeda's power faster than American policy over new recruitments. But these are people who have tried and will continue to try to kill Americans. If the opportunity arises to end them with a drone strike that avoids invading a foreign land....do it. It weakens the terrorist organizations in a way that does not reinforce the image of evil imperialist America like invading and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq have. But working with the new governments of the Arab Spring and trying to (finally) get a peace deal between Palestine and Israel--unlikely with Netanyahu in power, though--is the best way to secure long lasting peace in the area.

We disagree on several points.
Al-Qaida has been strengthened by the Arab spring. The image of the protesters as mostly secular is a myth. Cells of Al-Qaida have been detected in countries where they had no presence before the revolution (i.e. Libya). The merits of the idea of ending Al-Qaida by killing a leader are feeble at best. Killing people without due process by cooperating with weak, pro-US government does a lot to reinforce imperialistic views. Of course, it is better than actually having boots on the ground, but worse than a criminal trial. The opposition to Palestinian statehood, the lack of material support for protesters in Yemen, Bahrein and Syria, along with their continuing support of Saudi Arabia, reinforce the idea that oil and pre-existing alliances (Israel) are all America cares about.

 

[DBryan]

Even the Romans gave traitors trials.

How would you guys feel if the British government assassinated Republican Peter King?

Peter King funded and spoke in support of the IRA.

 

[DACrowe]

We disagree on several points.
Al-Qaida has been strengthened by the Arab spring. The image of the protesters as mostly secular is a myth. Cells of Al-Qaida have been detected in countries where they had no presence before the revolution (i.e. Libya). The merits of the idea of ending Al-Qaida by killing a leader are feeble at best. Killing people without due process by cooperating with weak, pro-US government does a lot to reinforce imperialistic views. Of course, it is better than actually having boots on the ground, but worse than a criminal trial. The opposition to Palestinian statehood, the lack of material support for protesters in Yemen, Bahrein and Syria, along with their continuing support of Saudi Arabia, reinforce the idea that oil and pre-existing alliances (Israel) are all America cares about.

Are there Islamist tendencies in some of the Arab Spring's revolutionaries? Yes. There are also seculars and moderates as well as extremists. It's a populist movement, but they're fighting for democracy in which their differences can be decided by something other than car bombs. And it's showing young Arabs (potential al-Qaeda and terrorist recruitments) that you can have real change in the region without strapping a bomb to yourself. The Arab Spring is actually overthrowing dictators without mass murder of innocents, therefore disproving al-Qaeda/Bin Laden's entire thesis on the use of violence and jihad to establish these goals.

I do agree that our loyalty to Israel--to the point of likely vetoing Palestine's claim for statehood--is going to tear down all the bridges we've built in the last two years. But as a whole, Americans not invading Libya and instead merely aiding the Libyan citizens overthrow an unpopular dictator, as well as supporting change in Tunisia and Egypt has been helpful to our public image. Only Pakistanis are outraged about the insult to their sovereignty (and embarrassed over a government so clearly hiding and aiding Bin Laden) by how Bin Laden was killed. Because the US government didn't gloat over al-Awlaki's demise, I doubt it's going to effect our perception too much either. These surgical strikes are not major recruiting tools like Iraq, Afghanistan, and are torturing in Abu-Ghraib, Gitmo and and the Afghan airbase have been.

There is no denying that al-Qaeda has been weakened by losing so much leadership and symbolic figures. You can't end extremism by killing them, but you can weaken and marginalize their organizational abilities, as we're doing, while supporting cultural changes that socially marginalize extremism as we're now seeing.

 

[DACrowe]

Even the Romans gave traitors trials.

How would you guys feel if the British government assassinated Republican Peter King?

Peter King funded and spoke in support of the IRA.

Would you really support sending in SEALs or other speacial-opps and risk American lives to take him alive while invading Yemeni sovereignty (thereby possibly inciting another Pakistani situation that enrages an Arab nation) so he can have a trial?

We do give trials to traitors. But in the Civil War, the Union Army wasn't trying to arrest Confederate soldiers who were essentially traitors because they were enemies in a war. It's not an honest argument, in my opinion.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Do you think this is justice?

I think that this is a very grey area. On one hand Superman here makes a very valid point

|
|
\/
​

I do, The man declared war on the US and instructed others to attack us and how to do it. He was a traitor and he knew what he was getting into when he did those things.

This is how we should have been fighting terrorism from the start.

It's very hard to argue against that. I'd like to add that it's far too risky to try and do a live capture where he can escape or more collateral damage can occur or risk the lives of American servicemen, put the prison he's held at and courtroom he's tried in in a severe security risk, he could escape, he could be set free, etc. And he was the world's most dangerous terrorist as the head of a branch of al-Qaeda that was effective as opposed to being utterly crippled like al-Qaeda in Iraq or the main al-Qaeda group.

But on the other hand, he's an American citizen and is entitled to due process rights and various other civil liberties.

Both are rather legitimate arguments.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

By that logic, we should have assassinated King Abdullah, since the Saudi monarchy has been linked to many jihadists in the peninsula.

This actually made me laugh. How can you compare killing the sovereign leader of Saudi Arabia to killing a terrorist in Yemen? You realise killing the King of Saudi Arabia would launch us into an actual war with that country (and probably surrounding Arabic countries) right? I don't like the Saudi monarchy, but when making analogies and comparisons, try to be a bit more realistic.

We should have also killed Pablo Escobar and strike a great victory in the War on Drugs.

Better. If we had drone capabilities in the 80's we probably would have. I'd have no problem with that. In fact, I think we should license drone technology to the Mexican government to help them with their war against drug-lords.

 

[Arya]

This actually made me laugh. How can you compare killing the sovereign leader of Saudi Arabia to killing a terrorist in Yemen? You realise killing the King of Saudi Arabia would launch us into an actual war with that country (and probably surrounding Arabic countries) right? I don't like the Saudi monarchy, but when making analogies and comparisons, try to be a bit more realistic.

I thought it all came down to imparting justice, not convenience. What happens when a terrorist organization becomes an actual part of government (i.e. Hamas, Hezbollah)? What happens when we target foreign mandatories (long history of doing so)? What happens when foreign governments indulge themselves into mass killing of their population (Syria)? Where's the line?

I want a coherent foreign policy that answers those questions, not having the Pentagon and the CIA coming up with all the answers. That's what I mean.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

What made Al-Alawki different from Timothy McVeigh?

The difference is that McVeigh wasn't in Yemen. The choices in this case were either to kill him or let him go. There was no realistic third option. This isn't Hollywood. They couldn't just send in Jack Bauer to go get him.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

I thought it all came down to imparting justice, not convenience.

When did I ever say this was solely about justice? Just like with C. Lee, you infer meaning from my words instead of just listening to what I'm saying. I'm first and foremost a pragmatist and in my very first reply to you I talked about the risk of trying to take Awlaki alive. In an ideal world I would rather see him stand trial, but the logistics of inserting a covert American team into a volatile province in Yemen and extracting him alive make it a risk not worth taking into.

What happens when a terrorist organization becomes an actual part of government (i.e. Hamas, Hezbollah)? What happens when we target foreign mandatories (long history of doing so)? What happens when foreign governments indulge themselves into mass killing of their population (Syria)? Where's the line?

Where's the line? Ask Israel. They've been taking out Hezbollah and Hamas for years. And when Gaddafi's regime was still in charge of Libya, we took out the country's military and installations with our drones. And we continue to take out the remnants of the Taliban, the former government of Afghanistan. Not really sure where you're going with this question. If you're trying to give me an example of a "slippery slope" you're not doing a very good job. Covert and overt actions against rogue governments are nothing new.

 

[Arya]

When did I ever say this was solely about justice? Just like with C. Lee, you infer meaning from my words instead of just listening to what I'm saying.

Don't compare this conversation to mine with C. Lee's. Let me get this straight: I never said you were talking about justice, but since we're talking about this, it turns out I happened to bring it in the first place and you commented to a reply on that subject.
Furthermore, I never suggested you were talking about justice, I just happened to be interested in the subject of just responses to terrorism, not just the termination of its leaders. You were the one moving the goalposts and making this a conversation about some sense of pragmatism.

But I believe future consequences have to be added up when considering supposed 'pragmatic' solutions. If convenience is all that matter, allow me to be graphic to make a point: why not nuke the ******* and be done with it? Yes, some additional lives will be lost, but none of them Americans, and some of them could be potential recruits for extremists, so we would just be proactive! So why not nuke them? None of those countries can really retaliate and we can always justify it and say they were posing extreme danger to our national security and, hence, the world's security.

And before you try to say I'm being ridiculous, take that ridiculous example, play it down and extract some considerations to our actual predicament. We, through previous agreement with tyrannical governments, are bombing suspects of secret investigations without proper disclosure of facts or even undisclosed trial. No, I don't conform with the notion that we are being kept safe. That's the same thing they said when they went after the WMDs.

Yes, I know it probably was easier to bomb the site, but if we had permission for that, how come putting men in the ground was so unattainable? Pakistan is a thousand times more volatile and plagued with radical islamists than Yemen, and we got in and killed the Big Guy. What was the difference? Besides, the intelligence community has stated Anwar al-Awlaki was leading several on-going plots against the US. Hence, he was a most valuable source of information, information maybe privy to the CIA. Wasn't he more valuable alive?

Total trust in the government is the last thing any sane citizen wants. So no, I don't approve with this line of action. And Obama seems to be getting too comfy on it.

[YT]Cn7IBsXJH50[/YT]

Where's the line? Ask Israel. They've been taking out Hezbollah and Hamas for years. And when Gaddafi's regime was still in charge of Libya, we took out the country's military and installations with our drones. And we continue to take out the remnants of the Taliban, the former government of Afghanistan. Not really sure where you're going with this question. If you're trying to give me an example of a "slippery slope" you're not doing a very good job. Covert and overt actions against rogue governments are nothing new.

Of course they are not new. They don't stop. I don't have to convince you on their never-ending nature. Ask Israel where targeting Hamas and Hezbollah has gotten them.

 

[Arya]

The difference is that McVeigh wasn't in Yemen. The choices in this case were either to kill him or let him go. There was no realistic third option. This isn't Hollywood. They couldn't just send in Jack Bauer to go get him.

Pakistan is more volatile and delicate than Yemen. Next to it, Yemen is a moderate republic. Pakistan actively serves as safehaven and base for several radical Islamic organizations and the Pakistani government frequently turns a blind eye. Bin Laden had more security than al-Awlaki. What was different this time?

 

[chaseter]

I really can't believe that some people would let him go. You all would be singing a different tune had that very next day he decapitated some American tourists or journalists. He is a traitor in a foreign land. The options were to kill him on site or let him go.

 

[chaseter]

Pakistan is more volatile and delicate than Yemen. Next to it, Yemen is a moderate republic. Pakistan actively serves as safehaven and base for several radical Islamic organizations and the Pakistani government frequently turns a blind eye. Bin Laden had more security than al-Awlaki. What was different this time?

Osama was in a residential neighborhood and Awlaki was traveling through the desert in a convoy. If we would have sent bombs down on Pakistan that would be a clear sign of war. If you hit a terrorist convoy in the middle of the desert then that is not so clearly terms of war.

 

[DACrowe]

I thought it all came down to imparting justice, not convenience. What happens when a terrorist organization becomes an actual part of government (i.e. Hamas, Hezbollah)? What happens when we target foreign mandatories (long history of doing so)? What happens when foreign governments indulge themselves into mass killing of their population (Syria)? Where's the line?

I want a coherent foreign policy that answers those questions, not having the Pentagon and the CIA coming up with all the answers. That's what I mean.

You want a one-size-fits-all absolutist foreign policy. That kind of logic leads to despair and "You're either with us or against us."

The truth is we can have guidelines and principles in our foreign policy and should always hold ourselves to a higher standard. However, the reality of this messy chaotic violence we call the international stage does not mean we can have the exact same solution to every problem. For example we had international support in Libya, Arab approval and a Europe willing to bare much of the burden. In Syria we are seeing mass murder (though not quite the cleansing process that was about to occur in Benghazi, I will point out), but after said intervention in Libya we don't have the resources or support to do so again. Does that mean saving tens or hundreds of thousands of lives in Libya was wrong?

Bombing Hamas would lead to a collapse of the currently moderate Palestinian government and create a ripple effect of anger throughout the Arab World which could even lead to some, like Hezbollah, declaring war on Israel. It'd also put any attempts at peace back another decade. Meanwhile, taking al-Awlaki hurts nobody but a crippled terrorist organization that is attempting to murder thousands of Americans at every opportunity.

They're not comparable because the situation is different. An absolutist view on foreign policy is impossible because we cannot police the world, right every injustice and be everywhere and fight everyone, nor can we put up our figurative walls, cover our ears and pretend that they don't exist and they'll leave the world's sole superpower alone if we wish real hard. Purity is an impossibility in reality.

 

[DACrowe]

Pakistan is more volatile and delicate than Yemen. Next to it, Yemen is a moderate republic. Pakistan actively serves as safehaven and base for several radical Islamic organizations and the Pakistani government frequently turns a blind eye. Bin Laden had more security than al-Awlaki. What was different this time?

Yemen is on the verge of a revolution and saw its leader abroad for months after being injured in an attack. We don't want to be the next match. Next, Yemen's government (while it still exists) supports our droning efforts and likely helped the CIA coordinate the attack or its intelligence to some degree while the Pakistani government is clearly corrupt and at some level has supported Bin Laden's hiding.

And lastly, the only way to get Bin Laden without massive casualties to innocent bystanders was surgical special ops strike. They couldn't send in a drone because first they were not sure Bin Laden was in the house and if he wasn't, they'd have killed innocent people and even if he was, his house was in middle of a neighborhood that could have unknown "collateral damage" of innocent Pakistanis being killed. A drone to a car in middle of nowhere doesn't have the same risk of spilling innocent blood.

Also, parts of the Arab world were enflamed by said stepping on Pakistan's sovereignty. Imagine if we did it again in less than six months to another country? Instead, Yemen's government can take credit for the killing and ease some of the Arab World angst about the American military running around.

 

[Arya]

I really can't believe that some people would let him go. You all would be singing a different tune had that very next day he decapitated some American tourists or journalists. He is a traitor in a foreign land. The options were to kill him on site or let him go.

I wouldn't have let him go. But I don't trust the government enough to believe these were our only two options. What, they happened to spot him on the move for the first time? They didn't let him go before? They didn't have any shot at getting him? Says who? Where is the factual evidence?

The Obama administration has made a communicational mess with this case. The American public knows nothing about the links of this cleric to Al-Qaida operations. Nothing. All the information available is the convenient one disclosed by the CIA and the Pentagon. Excuse me for not swallowing the whole pill.

I really can't believe that some people would let him go. You all would be singing a different tune had that very next day he decapitated some American tourists or journalists. He is a traitor in a foreign land. The options were to kill him on site or let him go.

Don't be mistaken:

1. I wouldn't have let him go. If the only alternative was to kill him, I would done it and then disclosed every little detail immediately, just like with Bin Laden's kill but more and sooner.

2. You don't know for a fact what the options were.

You want a one-size-fits-all absolutist foreign policy. That kind of logic leads to despair and "You're either with us or against us."

I agree with everything else you said but, come on... What is this? Where did you get all that from? Are you arguing with me or someone else?

I agree compromises are necessary. But the government didn't do this transparent enough. Why not explain their case better? Show the evidence of al-Awlaki being an actual operational leader? How did they retrieve the information of his location? Why not tail them? Why not try to get him alive? Isn't an ill-conceived policy to kill a major hub of terrorist operations, instead of retrieving valuable information from him?

And how can any cynical spectator not think of the political benefits of killing this guy? It's another cobblestone in Obama's path to re-election. He couldn't have picked a better season. And along with all the secrecy, shouldn't people be worried about who the only sources of information are?

Sure, we know it was to save American lives and all that, but that is what they would say no matter what. If Bush green-lighting torture was wrong, what makes this ok?

 

[dnno1]

For starters, it would be a long-term mentality. Assassinating terrorist leaders now can lead to an overall strengthening of the organization in the future. More radical leaders emerge with a sense of having to take swift action in order to prove themselves... the action is framed as imperialistic and lawless in order to spread more anti-Americanism and attract more recruits... political opposition frames incumbent governments as US lackeys and, in the case they get to power, strain relations with the US as a form of populism....

All those are possible unintended consequences, all of them endanger American lives domestically and abroad. Adhering to tried and public procedures always leads to more controlled scenarios.

Are you sure? Who would want to be the leader of an anti-American terrorist organization knowing that you will be dead in less than three years under an administration like Obama's? Furthermore, it seems like we are getting better at disrupting these networks. Just last week NATO made an arrest (without resistance) of one of the highest ranking members of the Haqqani terrorist network, the same group that was responsible for the attack on the U.S. embassy in Afghanistan a couple of weeks ago. I really don't think that we should be afraid of killing or trying any terrorists (although it seems that when we do arrest them and attempt to try them, now one is willing to have the trial in their town).

A prime example of what is wrong with post-9/11 legislation. Loopholes like that deny due process to cases the government don't want to try publicly. What made Al-Alawki different from Timothy McVeigh?

Al-Alawki was not in the United States and as a result not protected by the Constitution.

I do. I'm a 100% against the Patriot Act, the Dept. of Homeland Security and the expanded powers of the executive. I also thank every Congress since then for not repealing those unconstitutional initiatives.

No comment.

 

[DACrowe]

I agree with everything else you said but, come on... What is this? Where did you get all that from? Are you arguing with me or someone else?

I agree compromises are necessary. But the government didn't do this transparent enough. Why not explain their case better? Show the evidence of al-Awlaki being an actual operational leader? How did they retrieve the information of his location? Why not tail them? Why not try to get him alive? Isn't an ill-conceived policy to kill a major hub of terrorist operations, instead of retrieving valuable information from him?

And how can any cynical spectator not think of the political benefits of killing this guy? It's another cobblestone in Obama's path to re-election. He couldn't have picked a better season. And along with all the secrecy, shouldn't people be worried about who the only sources of information are?

Sure, we know it was to save American lives and all that, but that is what they would say no matter what. If Bush green-lighting torture was wrong, what makes this ok?

I was more referring to your previous post where you essentially asked for a simple, clear foreign policy that could allow you to apply a certain principle (or formula) to how we handle Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria, etc. and compare that to how we handle al-Qaeda. I'm saying it isn't possible to make such a clear black-and-white policy in these matters.

The US is downplaying their role so that the Yemeni government can take regional credit and that resentment for the US does not rise. Do I think it is possible that a special ops team could have been sent in to apprehend him? I don't know, but I think a traitor engaged in a war on his home country in a potentially hostile foreign land can be treated like an enemy soldier. If he wasn't an American, nobody would have complained about him being hit by a drone. The detainees in Gitmo are not Americans, but I don't think they should be tortured because that is unAmerican, against our principles and we control the situation. Targeting a convoy in the desert in a country we are not occupying seems like a situation with limited options.

It's good to question authority, but this seems more out of an arbitrary need by some to do so. They make it sound like he was assassinated in a US mall or in his home by a team of secret police. He was a self-proclaimed enemy in a war of which he is on the aggrevating side. He was treated like one. That's my point.

 

[Arya]

Are you sure? Who would want to be the leader of an anti-American terrorist organization knowing that you will be dead in less than three years under an administration like Obama's?

They won't stop taking the job. They will just adapt. Change the methods that made them targets would be a good idea.

On September 23rd, 2010, Colombian military forces carpet-bombed the location of a the then highest leader of the FARC guerrillas, Jorge 'Mono Jojoy' Briceño. His position was succeeded by a supposedly more moderate second-in-command. That was last year. This is a list of FARC's reported activities this year.

If only killing the leaders would be a sufficient enough deterrent, al-Zawahiri and al-Awlaki would have turned in. Sadly, this is not the case.

Al-Alawki was not in the United States and as a result not protected by the Constitution.

Jurisdiction is commonly assigned to the location where the crime was committed. If a connection to 9/11 was appropriately established, a trial would be held in America. Extradition would grant that.

No comment.

Agreement or disagreement?

 

[Arya]

I was more referring to your previous post where you essentially asked for a simple, clear foreign policy that could allow you to apply a certain principle (or formula) to how we handle Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria, etc. and compare that to how we handle al-Qaeda. I'm saying it isn't possible to make such a clear black-and-white policy in these matters.

I'm sorry, but where?

I think a traitor engaged in a war on his home country in a potentially hostile foreign land can be treated like an enemy soldier.

Couldn't he be more valuable as a POW? Of course you don't know, because the government was transparent enough on this issue.

If he wasn't an American, nobody would have complained about him being hit by a drone.

I would. I wasn't around here at the time but I sure wasn't happy with the way Bin Laden's death was handled. And although I was in a clear minority, I was not alone on that.

It's good to question authority, but this seems more out of an arbitrary need by some to do so. They make it sound like he was assassinated in a US mall or in his home by a team of secret police. He was a self-proclaimed enemy in a war of which he is on the aggrevating side. He was treated like one. That's my point.

Labelling him as an enemy combatant (something this administration never mentioned and has only been inferred in post-fact constitutional debates, as far as I know) was all too convenient.
Proclaiming oneself an enemy of a state doesn't make him/her an open target for military assassination. His freedom of expression grants him that right without peril. Again, Timothy McVeigh is a prime case, as a terrorist that happened.
Al-Qaida is not a foreign power and considering it as such is a technicality the government relies onto. Where is the required sworn allegiance to it by al-Awlaki?
Furthermore, no factual evidence was presented to prove this guy was more than a glorified propagandist, which is a messy mistake from the government.

Too many buts.

I'm sure you're referring to other people with the 'mall' criticism because I've tried hard not to sensationalize this thing. Again, I couldn't care less about the guy's nationality. I care about the circumstances and how the government has presented the facts in a way it will receive huge political dividends without being accountable for excesses of power.