The article provided is a link to many other articles, not one person one article who is holding a grudge. You either didn't bother to read it, or choose to misunderstand due to your own bias.

Nobody is against theory, people are against teaching that 2*4=9 is acceptable. Obviously anyone that does this lacks the theory, but I'm guessing that you will continue to ignore the real issues just like you ignore the provided links. People are also against the blatant use of propaganda in the materials (something else you choose to ignore) and the intentional ad-hoc complexity to ensure that theory comes after rote learning.

Students today spend at a minimum 1/4 of their time in school learning how to take tests, not learning how to think. This is the problem that many of us (educators and intellectuals) wish to correct.

Well, there is a whole lot of noise currently in the US regarding revolt and usurping career politicians. A couple elections recently here and in the UK have shown that it's a bigger issue than certain chain yankers (intentional ad hominem, no I'm not apologizing) wanted to believe. If they want to maintain power they have to do some things they may dislike.

The thing that us Citizens need to learn really fast is that this incremental power build up has taken a long time using many steps forward and few steps backward. If we really want things better this should not be something that stifles the crowds, but is a confirmed step in the process of restoring the republic (albeit a small one). It's going to be a long march to fix things, so a single step is miniscule.. but something.

Sorry, but that is not a straw man. You may dislike the wording, but the point is exactly that the US Constitution defines when a trial may be ignored/disallowed/ruled-out/etc.. which is "When eminent danger to the public exists".

I never state nor imply that it's a novel concept. I do, and will, claim that it's evil and should not be sponsored by a "Free Society". If you want to spread Democracy you can't do it with a gun. You spread democracy and freedom by leading by example and demonstrating that it's better than any other form of Government.

No, it means that you don't fully understand the Hegelian dialectic and how it's scope can be expanded.

As with above, you seem to be putting everything into a small bucket and don't understand the scope. If you see some corruption back up and look again at the picture. If you find more corruption back up and look again. If you see still more corruption back up and look again.

You admit some corruption exists but are limiting the scope to small pockets that are proven. Those proofs started with rumor and whistle blowers, and those were originally dismissed as "conspiracy theory". Brain washing that the term "conspiracy theory" is the same as "impossible, improbable, and illogical" happens all the time, and started back in the 1970s at least.

Funny thing that is. You assumed outcomes of a trial, I never have. I'm not sure if you are projecting your own thoughts on me or still trying to justify your position with an irrational belief. I stated without a trial we don't have both sides of the debate, and that the lack of trial was illegal under the circumstances. I have never assumed anything in this thread, I have stated facts and opinion based on fact. Since we have covered a good amount of ground I'm not sure you have enough facts in some areas but you have never asked for additional facts that support my opinion.

Not relevant, I stated that the assassination is absolutely illegal by our Constitution. You did not argue my original point, you changed the subject and went off on a tangent claiming that because he said something he was guilty of posing eminent threat to the US population. If he was posing such eminent threat by using simple rhetoric then the majority of the people in the US Government, UK Government, German Government, etc... (as well as thousands of agents, professors, etc..) are just as guilty of being an eminent threat and a different country. Those different countries should be within their rights to assassinate those people.

You can't have it both ways while thinking clearly and rationally.

The Government lied about Sadam having WMDs and the whole pretext for killing millions of people was false. The whole story about Assad using Sarin gas on his populace is false and a pretext for killing countless other people. The whole story about the NSA was a complete lie and is a pretext for squashing our personal liberties and dissenting opinions to what the Government want's people to believe.

You are insane if you believe anything provided by that same set of people without hearing countering arguments. Those countering arguments died with al-Awlaki. We could surely say the same about Christopher Dorner couldn't we? Yes we could, so the issue is not just limited to a country a few thousand miles away.

Wait, are you claiming that the Government does not work with media outlets to ensure a specific message is being sent out to the American public which is falsifying reality? Are you trying to claim that if we can show one conspiracy all others vanish? Are you trying to claim that if you can't prove one conspiracy all other conspiracies can't be true? I really don't get your point. The first is a well known fact, numerous whistle blowers have told you that exact same thing for many many decades. The latter 2 points are just asinine, so I have no idea where you are trying to go, except to try and justify an illegal act by the US Government which is currently not being prosecuted for wrong doing (which relates heavily to the lunacy of the 2nd and 3rd question if answered "Yes").

I don't presume to know the outcome of a trial that never happened like you do. Do I believe that he would have been executed for claiming "Death to Infidels" on video? The obvious answer is that may have been put in jail for a while, tested for sanity, but without actually committing a violent crime the penalty would not have been death. Even if he was directly linked to a violent crime he would not be guaranteed death or even life in prison.

I also don't presume to know what he would have stated in trial to defend his actions. What if he was anti-corruption and trying to train forces to fix what the American public has been largely ignoring in terms of open corruption? Would you still claim he was a terrorist if that's what he said?

Put differently, we can play the hypothetical game all day, but it won't get us anywhere. The law was written to ensure that anyone suspected of a crime receives a fair trial. The US Government ensured that he was punished without a trial and acted illegally and unconstitutionally. All parties that approved the death sentence should be placed on trial for murder, accessory to murder, conspiracy to commit murder. A court and jury of peers (not schleps) should be able to rule on their crimes.

Which is an opinion based on hearsay, and you are entitled to your opinion. I still argue the lack rationality basing an opinion on information provided by a group of narcissistic people that have no qualms killing millions to further an agenda they maintain in secrecy and behind lies.

Ok, lets make this a Socratic method.

al-Awlaki saying "Death to Infidels" is different how from US agencies claiming "Death to Terrorists"? There is no difference. Both sides are claiming that the other should die due to a label they have attached to people.

Really now? A Government and it's agencies that have repeated lied to it's own people over a huge rash of issues gives me how much confidence that what those same people claimed about al-Awlaki is true? Absolutely zero should be your answer. But again lets' use the Socratic method.

How are you sure that they were not lying about al-Awlaki?

You must put that answer into the eminent threat territory or it does qualify for any punishment without a trial. Facebook and Twitter messages don't count (and can obviously be forged).

That conspiracy has been there since the 1970s at least, so yes we know it's there and has become much more prevalent in the last half decade. Based on your statement I think you get that much. To the last part, taking NO action and having NO expectation will not change anything.

A war is made up of many small battles, not a single action. It seems as though you are advocating silence and no action because it can't change enough to win the war on it's own. Wrong way of thinking, and we continue to decline into tyranny by doing nothing and remaining silent.

The war in this case is being waged against your personal liberties, and the liberty of your children, and their children. Someone else declared that war on you long ago, you don't have to fight. History is full of people that chose to do nothing, and look how well that turned out for them. That's not a statement intended to force you into a fight, but rather not advocating surrender for everyone around you trying to regain their liberty and end the build up of tyranny.

Oh Noes! The imaginary threat strikes again! If I was over in the Middle East I would be visiting at my own risk and outside of the protection of my Government. No, it's not just an issue with Iraq and Afghanistan, try and travel to our "ally" Saudi Arabia and see what the warnings and risks are.

Save the bullshit about a Soldier's risks because I'm a veteran of the US Army and knew the risks I faced there if captured in a time of warm and faced them every day for 4 years.

You are not a veteran, you are a coward using cowards words to justify cowardly acts.

The person was "wanted" for his actions, but he was "Killed" for those same actions which posed absolutely ZERO threat to the public of the USA. Trying to justify it by imagining otherwise is what our Government did, but not what you should be doing.

A Drone strike against a specific target that someone in the Government claims should die is exactly an assassination. There are no subtleties implied in the word, unless again you are attempting to use your imagination to justify an assassination.

You are close, but the Bill of Rights states that lethal force may need to be used to protect the public from eminent danger. Not "just because a cop feels like it" (which we seem to have an awful lot of lately).

Anwar al Awlaki may have been making videos telling people that they should do things to the US, but that is most certainly not presenting any eminent danger. Even if he was building an army until he starts gunning for Americans he is fine to do so. Hell, the US helps to arm and train militants that the Government likes.

We are "told" that he was bad, but in all honesty without a trial how do we know? Because a bunch of narcissistic politicians and heads of 3 letter agencies say so? Sadam had WMDs and yellow cake bombs, and the NSA is not spying on citizens right?

If the person died in a firefight against soldiers we would not be having the discussion would we? Nope, but that is not the reality. An assassination based on hearsay which repeatedly uses the word "imagine" is not the same thing. "I think" is not a crime, "I do" is a crime.

Read the Bill of Rights, and it will become clear. The law is spelled out very well in the 5th and 6th amendments.

This is unconstitutional, period. No person shall be punished for any crime without a trial, read your Bill of Rights. There is no exception clause for US Citizen, it's all people. Them claiming "We think he's going to do something" does not even meet their own criteria. Should we all post on Facebook that Angelina Merkel is going to bomb a post office so that she can be killed by a drone? Yes, that is exactly why they killed the person in question. No proof of any plans, just that they believed it was eminent (I'm sure that they believe in the Easter Bunny too, as long as it's a convenient excuse to do something they want).

The US Government has given weapons, training, and funding to Al Qada in Libya and Syria. Of course we killed a few in Iraq and Afghanistan, because you know. "Terrorists". So the real problem with these groups is whether or not they are playing ball with the US, or have duped the US into believing they are playing ball. Nothing more, nothing less. If they don't play ball, obviously they are terrorists that are going to build canoes and paddle to the US and nuke us with all of the materials they can fit in their canoes.

If certain people had their way, there would be numerous OWS casualties as well. Instead we just see them illegally imprisoned on an abandoned pier in NYC, beat by cops everywhere else.