https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1slTpRoVEGFJy61r9VsP_Hx2c3_ZaBH_YHZ_LWc52sUo



Anwar al-Awlaki was a radical American-born Muslim cleric who became a leading figure in Al Qaeda's affiliate in Yemen. He was killed there on Sept. 30, 2011 by a missile fired from an American drone aircraft.https://docs.google.com/document/d/1slTpRoVEGFJy61r9VsP_Hx2c3_ZaBH_YHZ_LWc52sUo/edit

Views to a Kill, an article written by Peter Catapano was posted in the New York Times October 14,2011. In this article, Catapano notes that assassinations are generally considered criminal and are not openly practiced by institutions governed by law. However, he contends that in light of recent events, pundit debates have brought to surface big questions like: are some assassinations justified? Does it matter who is assassinated? Or who does the assassinating? lhttp://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/views-to-a-kill/?emc=eta1
Catapano really lays out a spreadsheet of what appears to be a double standard committed by the United states not only as it relates to other countries committing acts of lawless assignations on U.S. soil and abroad but double standards along party lines. The following is an excerpt from the article.
Pundit followers would probably not be surprised to learn that Glenn Greenwald at Salon was all over the issue. In a post last week, raising the specter of a moral double standard, he wrote: “I genuinely wonder whether the Good Democrats doing so actually first convince themselves that if this were the Bush White House’s hit list, or if it becomes Rick Perry’s, they would be supportive just the same. Seriously: if you’re willing to endorse having White House functionaries meet in secret — with no known guidelines, no oversight, no transparency — and compile lists of American citizens to be killed by the CIA without due process, what aren’t you willing to support?”
And this: “Remember, Good Democrats hate the death penalty because they think it’s so terribly barbaric to execute people whose guilt is in doubt (even if, unlike Awlaki, they’ve enjoyed an indictment and full jury trial, lawyers, the right to examine evidence and to confront witnesses, multiple appeals, and habeas petitions).”


Analysis: Secretive panel of senior government officials staffed by med-level NSC officials, who distance themselves from the President, compose a target list of individuals to be killed or captured as in the case of Anwar al-Awlaki. The President can not be implemented or held accountable for anything decisions made by the panel because, he’s “hands-off” per se. Liberals and conservatives alike, criticized the drone attack on Anwar al-Awlaki however, when Osama bin Laden was assassinated,there was high praise from both parties.
Emptywheel reached back for a comparison that could not have pleased Democrats, writing that the Awlaki assination is like the Bush torture program. There, too, the administration built in plausible deniability for the President. The Obama White House efforts to do the same with Awalaki’s death are all the more striking given that it has not been so coy about Obama’s involvement in ordering hits in the past,most notably when we killed Osama bin Laden. With OBL, the Administration proudly highlighted Obama’s role in the decision-making process; here, they’re working hard to obscure it.


Formalized:
P1. A plot by Iranian operatives to kill the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. elicited anger from the Obama administration.
P2. CIA drone strike killed Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen following orders from a secret panel of U.S. government officials.
P3. Reports of a secret panel open the door for Obama opponents to criticize a possible reviving of the “death panel” in which the President is theoretically protected from liability.
P4. Obama supporters say the “death panel” concept is one that mirrors the bizarre structure of the Iran-Contra scheme that shielded President Reagan.
P5. The Awlaki assassination is like the Bush torture program that had a built in plausible denial for the President.
conclusion:
With the death of Osama bin Laden, the role of the President was proudly highlighted but here, they are working hard to obscure it.
The fallacy committed in this argument is that of Red Herring. Tricky moral questions are being asked of the current administration but instead of answering directly our attention is diverted to unrelated comparisons.