But that's not what you originally said. A "principled" Muslim terrorist wouldn't kill someone just because he felt like it.
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.
I'm reasonably sure because I don't see why they would lie about this one guy.
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.
No you're misunderstanding... I was just trying to point out the futility of your argument. If you believe in this big conspiracy, then a guilty verdict in court isn't going to change your mind. Simple as that. It has nothing to do with what I think (I think al-Awlaki was a terrorist and deserved to die by any means necessary, including a drone strike without a trial).
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").
Let me ask you directly -- if he had had a trial, and had been found guilty, and had been sentenced to death, would that honestly be enough for you? You'd be like "Oh I guess it wasn't all lies and conspiracies.. this was fair!"
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.
If so, then you get points for consistency but I think it's silly. He's a terrorist who appears in videos asking people to attack the US. Trials are for exploring both sides of an issue and finding the most likely truth. Well we already have that.
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.