Let me guess. Could it POSSIBLY be that Anwar al-Awlaki was an enemy combatant actively waging war against the U.S. in a command and control capability? (Except that, in war, you just say "kill")
Anwar al-Awlaki's online support for Fort Hood gunman Major Hasan
After Benedict Arnold's treason, the British gave him a brigadier general's commission. In December 1780, under orders from Clinton, Arnold led a force of 1,600 troops into Virginia, where he captured Richmond by surprise and then went on a rampage through Virginia, destroying supply houses, foundries, and mills. This activity brought Virginia's militia out, and Arnold eventually retreated to Portsmouth to either be evacuated or reinforced.
According to the ridiculous notion that American citizens waging war against the U.S. can only be captured and tried, but not killed, during these battles, Benedict Arnold could have been on his horse, riding up and down the British lines, giving commands, in complete safety, because he could not be legally killed without a trial.
Absolutely ridiculous.
By this absolutely ridiculous notion, right after 9-11, al Qaeda could have had hundreds of pregnant women crossing the U.S.-Canada border to pop out U.S. citizen "anchor babies" that, 19 years later, could form an entire little army of combatants that allegedly cannot be killed by air strike ...... only captured and tried in court.
"We are taking fire from the al Qaeda Abraham Lincoln Brigade. We need an air strike!"
"Air strike denied. Members of the al Qaeda Abraham Lincoln Brigade can only be captured for trail but not killed."
Absolutely ridiculous.
When you wage war, you wage war and getting KILLED is part of the game.
"Remember, boys. Don't shoot them! Capture them for trial!"
