al-awlaki

Just because you disagree, even vehemently, with al-Awlaki's message, does not mean that we should compromise our principles of due process.

Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was a 16-year-old American boy, eating dinner at a restaurant in Yemen while searching for his father.

And ultimately, it's deeply counter-productive to try and lump people like Hammond together with people like al-Awlaki.

It is my understanding that the nephew of al-Awlaki, also a US citizen, was engaged with the resistance on the ground.

What's your best source for al-Awlaki's attempt to extract his son from Yemen?

They specifically avoided countering the argument that you find to be misleading, the same argument made by the estate of al-Awlaki in court.

This is a drastic oversimplification of what the USG believed about al-Awlaki.

Open and openly arbitrary disappearing, detention, and torture of intellectuals for the crime of writing articles critical of state-sponsored religious and political doctrine Al-Awlaki?

So did his son (for having Al-Awlaki as a father, no less).

There is no evidence in here that Anwar al-Awlaki was attempting to extricate his juvenile son from the war zone he had taken him into.

So I think lumping al-Awlaki and Hammond together is very much productive.

How about Abdulrahman al-Awlaki or Samir Khan?

What I don't think you can say is that in the al-Awlaki case the USG struck al-Awlaki down simply because he was a "dissenter".

No evidence exists that Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was deliberately targeted, which makes him a bad example of the impact of a "disposition matrix".

Your closing comment: "What I don't think you can say is that in the al-Awlaki case the USG struck al-Awlaki down simply because he was a "dissenter".

All I'm arguing is that in al-Awlaki's case, the USG didn't assassinate someone merely for "dissenting".