mdegges Posted November 13, 2011 Report Share Posted November 13, 2011 I was watching the Republican debates and a question came up about Anwar al-Awlaki, a US citizen who was killed by the CIA. The question asked to the candidates was about what right the president should have to singularly make these decisions about targeted killing. Most of the candidates who responded seemed to agree that the president should have the authority to make that decision. The man in question who was killed, Awlaki, was "a charismatic preacher who has said it is a religious duty to attack the United States." The CIA believed that the attempted bombing of Times Square was "inspired in part by his rhetoric." [source] Since the government's job is to protect it's citizens individual rights, is it immoral to kill a US citizen (who's inside or outside the US) without giving him due process as required by law? If so, should there be exceptions (as in Awlaki's case, where the citizen's speech promotes violence against other US citizens)? Personally I believe it's wrong that he wasn't given a trial, or even an indictment. Even though his speech promoted religious extremism, he was still a US citizen with the right to due process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2046 Posted November 13, 2011 Report Share Posted November 13, 2011 There's a thread here on the subject vis-a-vis Ron Paul's position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdegges Posted November 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 13, 2011 Oh dang, I didn't see that in search. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.