Yes, and when we find out someone has murdered someone we send the police to apprehend them. Sometimes the interaction between the police and the suspect leads to the suspect being shot and an investigation takes place as to whether that was warranted.

I see no way in which the drones sent could be reasonably explained as attempting to apprehend or arrest the subject.

> Yes, and when we find out someone has murdered someone we send the police to apprehend them.

Is there any proof or evidence? It seems the lack of evidence made public is why people are upset.

There is not even an assertion, no charges were ever filed against the accused in the US.

Was any public announcement made that he was a target? Or was he killed without warning?

Yeah, his father knew, sued the US gov't and they had it dismissed because it was a 'political issue'

Has proof of that he was involved in any plots been publicly presented anywhere? Based on the public record it looks like he was killed for exercising his First Amendment rights, albiet in a repugnant fashion.

This would all be a moot point if there had been a trial held (even in absentia).

These guys are destroying the best parts of America because they're lazy, they're incompetent and/or they don't respect the Rule of Law. Any of these three reasons is sufficient not to allow anyone involved in these criminal acts to prosper, flourish, or succeed in any meaningful way in our country.

I don't know about you, but all I know about al-Awlaki is what I've heard from the US government.

Ignorance: the best argument for life.

If only there were a legal process for resolving ignorance and uncertainty.

Then again, you could just go to YouTube and watch any of the many video lectures in which al-Awlaki lays out his ideas about jihad and so forth. Saying you only know what the government tells you about him just demonstrates a lack of interest in doing any research of your own.

Fair enough, I haven't done that. Still, the prosecution of capital crimes, even self-confessed ones, involves well-defined legal processes. Those processes don't, and shouldn't, include assassination in cold blood.

I don't think a trial is the be-all and end-all of due process where military conflict is concerned, but I see where you're coming from. We're unlikely to agree about this as I have a considerably more hawkish view on foreign policy matters than you do, I think.

True. What I keep coming back to is the staggering amount of blood and treasure we could have saved by treating 9/11 as a criminal act by a few deranged cultists, which is what it was, instead of a traditional casus belli. Our moral authority as a peace-loving nation would also be intact.