5 ms·
Whether it was a case of dissent was exactly why it was controversial and why it sparked debate over free speech and due process rights. Sure, if you assume the
by logn 12y ago
Whether it was a case of dissent was exactly why it was controversial and why it sparked debate over free speech and due process rights. Sure, if you assume the government's official account to be true, it's a disservice to equate his actions with dissent. A trial would have determined whether he was merely advocating violence or whether he was plotting it. Since when does the presumption of innocence glorify anyone?
- tptacek 12y agoIt doesn't. What's misleading is the suggestion that al-Awlaki was targeted as a "dissenter", as if the USG merely didn't like what he had to say.
- logn 12y agoThe government's argument in court was that liability for his assassination is not an issue the court can decide. They specifically avoided countering the argument that you find to be misleading, the same argument made by the estate of al-Awlaki in court. The court agreed that it didn't need to address that issue and dismissed the case for other reasons.
- tptacek 12y agoYou think we're debating something that we're not debating. I don't have a position on drone assassinations and am not arguing that they're legitimate. All I'm arguing is that in al-Awlaki's case, the USG didn't assassinate someone merely for "dissenting".