Well, life is busy, but I found a paper with 56 reasons the author disagrees with him, him referring to our current president.
Out of those few, I do disagree with a number of them, but there does not exist the general thrust of the War on Terror? What specific offenses must a person commit to cross the line from an ordinary criminal and become a terrorist? What people are consulted, in the CIA, the FBI, or whomever, to prove a person guilty, and shouldn't the due process be shared? How dangerous is "too dangerous" to carry out due process on a terrorist? What makes the difference between Timothy McVeigh and Anwar Al-Alwaki? both of them did preach, and supposedly allegedly carried out terrorism, or at least planned, the killing of numerous Americans. How about the possibility of trying a sniper shot to kill targets, which, given the skill of a sniper, would at least go to show that we likely at least killed the person we said we would kill, and if the visual (which drones could "see) wouldn't have to kill a whole building full of people? Or how about just explaining the death of his sixteen-year old son (which, according to the ACLU, and his grandfather) died hundreds of miles from the place that his father was killed? At least answer for the killing?
Again, I am not here to consider myself an expert on Civil Rights as those who run the ACLU, but at the same time, it just irks me to consider sitting back and classifying the actions of our political figures as inherently righteous without second thought. I do feel the need to be an informed citizen, however, and do feel that it is critical that we think about where, given the Ten Years of the War on Terror and Emergency Powers to run the battle run, where are the limits? Where is the conditions for the war being over?
Second, I also feel it important that people hear the offensive material from Anwar Al-Awlaki, not because I agree with it. As a matter of fact, I vehemently disagree with it, just as I disagreed with what Hitler wrote in Mein Kempf with disgust. However, there is an important value to this, because as the old saying goes, "Those who do not study history are condemned to repeat it. Hitler's Mein Kempf and Anwar Al-Awlaki both gave the patterns of disturbing bigotry and paranoia in what they wrote, in my next article, I plan to write my full commentary on why I disagree with Alwaki vehemently in what he writes, but in the meantime, the link is here. I offer you my full warning, if you do not feel you are up to the critical thinking neccessary to handle this material, then do not view this. However, I hope that you do, and recognize the offensive nature and understand and think on why you can counter the awful principles delivered by Al-Awlaki, and hear something that Obama and the CIA would not present this alleged speech of Al-Awlaki, even when this message, in some form, could have been organized into a decent case or grounds for arrest, much less the targeted killing to him and the surrounding collateral damage.