Reply #119: Al-Awlaki was actually indicted in two countries last year.

[Robb]

Yemen, which could probably be dismissed as a dysfunctional court system, and in the UK, which is a more difficult challenge to dismiss.

Second, the notion that Saleh was in any way helpful rather ignores the history of his tenure in Yemen. I'm not sure why Greenwald wants to push that particular silliness.

Third, that Greenwald can cite unnamed "Yemen experts" who doubt the al-Awlaki's operational role in planning several attacks and bombings merely suggests he intends to remain willfully ignorant of public court proceedings that rather otherwise over the past three years.

Finally, on the topic of law, and how "we'll never know" how a court case with al-Awlaki would've turned out -- nonsense. US courts have spoken repeatedly on the First Amendment as it pertains to causing harm; that the idea will not be tried in court again here is no loss to either our nation's public discourse, nor its system of legal precedents.

Maybe Greenwald wrote quickly to get this in the right news cycle, but he kind of blew it; there are excellent arguments against targeted killings out there, many indeed expressed quite eloquently on this board, but he makes none of them, choosing instead to weave a bunch of (put generously) half-truths into a sympathy ploy for a man who doesn't deserve it.

All it does is polarize, not inform, the discussion, and indeed those discussing it. Instead of addressing issues, he puts miles of daylight between what he sees as the only two options: either you're a barbarian who enjoys killing people, or you're supportive of al-Awlaki.

That's how he's framed it, and that's what you see in this thread discussing it. One side thinks the other are barbarians, the other side thinks the first are somehow asking al-Awlaki to lead the toast at their daughters' wedding. Idiotic article.