We probably do disagree. If you read further, you will see that there was a little antagonism between the person I had a conversation (on both parts) was peacefully resolved.I believe we have significant policy differences between us. I will not call you, or anyone else who begins with a policy difference a hypocrite. I ask that you consider the same rule.
We obviously disagree since I don't believe that Islam is the main driving force behind these terrorists attacks. It was a hit. The President used the CIA to place an assassination order on a citizen that was never even charged with a crime. Unfortunately, this is America where we love to practice extraordinary rendition, use secret prisons, and torture people who have never been charged of a crime.Given my starting position that we are in a war with Islamofascists and our target was part of the command and control structure he is a legitimate target. This was not a hit. This as a wartime killing, a decapitation.
Terrorism can be both. Yes, I believe in the rule of law. I don't think we should be placing hit orders on people, capturing them on one country and secretly imprisoning them in another, and torturing people without ever bringing charges against them. I find it appalling that people now believe that these are American principles.I believe you are beginning from the perspective that terrorism is a crime instead of a war tactic. Therefore you believe he should be apprehended, read his rights, given a lawyer and tried.
Do I understand your position?
Here is Ron Paul the topic, in which I agree with. The death of Al-Awlaki is a net benefit. However, we must be careful as a society if we now believe that the President has the right to order the killing of another person, especially an American citizen, without even charging him. Notice that Ron Paul nor I have ever said that we should be flying over there and serving him papers. You can still charge someone of a crime in absentia.