After months of internal debate, the Obama administration is planning to reveal publicly the legal reasoning behind its decision to kill the American-born leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Anwar al-Awlaki.
The problem–the problem that strikes at the very heart of democratic accountability–is that the Administration plans to keep secret the details that would prove (or not) that Awlaki was what the Administration happily claims he is under the veil of anonymity, all while claiming that precisely that information is a state secret.
Me:
…Awlaki would have been eligible for too many rights if placed on trial…thus the decision for quick, easy, hassle-free murder…Considering the fact that the US military just came out with a study which concluded that Awlaki’s death will not weaken al Qaeda in the slightest and the fact that he was never an official member of al Qaeda, yes it would have been difficult to get him convicted of something he was not. Furthermore, given available evidence, it’s likely that Awlaki’s supposed role as Inspiration Provider is protected speech under the First Amendment.
