Pretty sure I acknowledged it when I explained how we announced to the world that we intended to murder Awlaki without trial. Premeditation. Murder. Intent. Our legal system does not even enter into this. When a pilot drops a bomb on a house in Libya is he tried in court? No. However, the house is destroyed and the occupants are killed. You make it seem like there is some form of redress the wrongfully killed have against us when we make one of our routine mistakes. What does enter into this is the fact that anyone left alive with an attachment to those who've just been blown up will hate us like no other. It is in this way that our foreign policy breeds "terrorists" I think Obama has betrayed his oath of office and should be impeached immediately. The President does not have the Constitutional authority to murder US citizens extra judicially and when a President abuses the power of his office, like Obama has clearly done, that president should be removed. If the conduct of Awlaki was so egregious and beyond contesting, then it should have been relatively easy to prove that he was guilty of treason before a judge. Why didn't Obama do this? Also, if another nation's military accidentally killed your family, how would you feel about it and would you retaliate?
If "our legal system does not even enter into this" then why should an enemy combatant terrorist who's actively and openly working for al-Qaeda be given a trial? Do you think police are murderers if they kill some lunatic who's shooting people without giving him a trial?
When talking about our military and the ROE you seem to think absolves us of any wrongdoing...magically...as though we were God's chosen people or some such nonsense. Also, you never answered my questions so I will pose them again: 1. If the conduct of Awlaki was so egregious and beyond contesting, then it should have been relatively easy to prove that he was guilty of treason before a judge. Why didn't Obama do this? 2. If another nation's military accidentally killed your family, how would you feel about it and would you retaliate? Completely different scenario. The police would be defending innocent bystanders against an imminent threat. Awlaki killed exactly zero people and was firing a weapon at no one...unless you have some information I am not privy to...do you?
What if he killed you because you made statements that ran counter to what he wanted to hear? Should we impeach him then?
Bullshit. You can't have it both ways. If al-Awlaki was in fact deserving of a trial, why hasn't your messiah Ron Paul done anything more about it than shoot off his big kook mouth? The military protects the nation and police protect communities. The threat al-Awlaki posed was constant and imminent enough.
Another phony equivalence. I'm not a terrorist, let alone one actively and openly working for al-Qaeda.
Not trying to and more ad hominen...how old are you anyway? Ron Paul has stated that what the President has done is unconstitutional. In fact, he's made a career out of calling out that which is unconstitutional. Unfortunately for us, it is not up to Ron Paul to impeach the President. That has to be done by the House Judiciary committee and they have shown no desire to reign in the Executive branch's dictatorial power grabs. That makes for a nice bumper sticker, but it is devoid of substance and is not always true in practice. When we abandon the rule of law, we are no different than the evil terrorists we claim to be fighting...like Al Qaeda...unless we are in Libya...in which case we support them. If the threat posed by Awlaki was so easily identifiable then it should have been no sweat to present it to a judge.