Skut

Ok, but Al-Awlaki's actions were no different than those of Osama Bin Laden who was killed in almost the same way. Perhaps extrajudicial killing is wrong but what could the government have done to take care of this active terrorist if it wasn't feasible to bring him to the US from Yemen? The video you showed me above implies that the person hasn't broken a law. Awlaki has clearly committed treason and is fighting alongside our enemny so there is a pretty big difference.

I could not find any posts on Awlaki and his due process rights except this post: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=19477&hl=awlaki&fromsearch=1 Although this article makes a great point regarding citizenship, Awlaki was still legally considered a citizen so it doesn't help with my question. Ron Paul recently criticized the administration for denying a US citizens his rights to due process by "assassinating" him. He stated, "I don't think that's a good way to deal with our problems," Paul told reporters. "Al-Awlaki was born here; he is an American citizen. He was never tried or charged for any crimes. No one knows if he killed anybody. We know he might have been associated with the underwear bomber. But if the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the president assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys, I think it's sad. "I think what would people have said about Timothy McVeigh? We didn't assassinate him, who we were pretty certain that he had done it. Went and put through the courts then executed him. To start assassinating American citizens without charges, we should think very seriously about this."- From http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/09/30/140950953/ron-paul-condemns-al-awlakis-killing Could anyone provide an Objectivist principled argument against or in or support of Ron Paul's statement. Was what the US government did in killing Anwar Al-Awlaki right or wrong?