nessus2 wrote:
Why don't you go first?

You define the terms anyway you like, and then explain your position in light of those terms. You know. Discuss, instead of you just interrogating me.

I have posted a great deal about my views here, and where they come from, and all you've done is throw snide spit balls.

It's your turn.

What do YOU think?

Personally, I don't give a shit that he was assassinated (Anwar al-Awlaki).  I do have a problem with his son also being killed.  But you have to look at the "big picture" (I hate that expression almost as much I hate "bottom line", but I use both for want of better ones).  We can't have the President of the United States unilaterally deciding that a US citizen should be assassinated because he decided that person is a terrorist.  Why have laws?  It is a slippery slope.  Do I agree with the War on Terror?  I don't know because terrorists don't play by any rules and have no problem with targeting innocent people.   Should we throw the Constitution out the window in order to support the War on Terror?  Because that's kind of what we're doing.  But then we've been throwing the Constitution out the window since it was written.