Actually, you're dead wrong about that. He also targeted and assassinated at least one other, Awlaki's sixteen-year old son, also an American citizen, and he wasn't even radicalized.
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/abdulrahman-al-awlaki-death-10470891
So, you want to test your ignorance again and say, "Oh, he only killed two?"
However, since you believe he has the complete right to hide murder when he does it, you are practically petitioning President Obama to keep you ignorant. If he committed hundreds, and stamped it secret, that's okay with you.
Your standards are pretty low when murder and obstruction doesn't disqualify a person from the Presidency.
The doctrine allowing the President to commit murder, citizen or not, on foreign or domestic soil, is still active and they didn't make it just for Awlaki and his son. As much as the President boasted about it and as much as people praised him, why wouldn't he do it again?
Equally, by your distorted logic, Jonathan Pollard would have been killed by the CIA to avoid embarrassment to themselves and to Israel.
Irrelevant. That was before 9/11 and the Patriot Act and like laws. We're not discussing Pollard or espionage before 2001.
"The publicity aspect is massive; for example Israel could have had Eichmann killed instead they brought him back for a show trial."
Well that publicity factor somehow doesn't appear to have applied to Awlaki or his son.
First, it doesn't take too much imagination to see that the "publicity aspect" of a "show trial" could easily backfire in this case. Remember, the Soviets, the inventors of the show trial, preferred to do most of their killing in secret, because they knew it could backfire. Why do you presume that the trial would make our government look better?
Plus, he might not be in a place where they can capture him. I wouldn't doubt if his itinerary isn't false, and he disappears somewhere between Cuba and Ecuador. If the choices are narrowed between having him free and having him dead, dead might win out as the preference.
Similarly, all the spies captured by other countries should be dead - except a live spy provides not just a bargaining chip but publicity.
And your believing without any question that he's a spy and not a whistle blower. Suppose he hasn't revealed anything except what we know publicly? And the government knows this? Now, what's his value as a bargaining chip?
Oh, I know. He can't be. Otherwise a
Lastly, the Eichmann Trial was a "show trial?" You'd compare Eichmann's trial the travesty that the Soviets committed ?
Now I'm certain you're not only ignorant, but you're cynical to the bone. I'm breaking off discussion and putting you on ignore, because I don't have the minimal respect for you required to restrain myself from insults.
You just watch what happens from here.
PS. The side topic was a declaration and not open to discussion.
= new reply since forum marked as read
- Whomever it is that is writing this script, watched way too much teevee as a child......
