Two separate issues all together; can we kill people inside the borders of another country we are not at war with and can the government kill US citizens.
My stance on the second issue is that at some point, US citizen or not, your actions can and should be able to make you an enemy combatant in a war. I'm no expert, but I do believe in a traditional war that is the case and always has been. In this case, the war on terrorism, the issue is that we are not at war with a country but with a dispersed enemy that resides in counties like Yemen that either don't have the power to control terrorists or don't want to no matter how much money we through at them. So, we are left with having to fight terrorists the best we can remotely inside the borders of countries that don't want us there. But since this is not a traditional war, perhaps someone (judge perhaps) should provide over site for actions like these.
I think that most people, regardless of the political party they are in, would do the same thing provided the same circumstances and same intel. No politician and no political party, wants another 9/11, especially if they are the ones responsible at that time. I find it very hard to believe that the decision to kill a US citizen within another country would have been made any different by any other politician had they actually been required to make that decision at that time with the intel provided knowing their ass was on the line for any terrorist act that kills Americans. I love how all of you people are suddenly experts on what is really going on in the world from the seat of your couches. The decision to kill Anwar was not a political decision; the decision to make a public spectical of the people who had to make that hard decision is completely political. Rand Paul will surely get droves of idiots all wound up over this.
