When we learned of the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki, a lot of Obama supporters were just happy to have something to put towards the administration's "win" column. But for civil libertarians, the administration's actions were just another example of Obama's failure to live up to campaign promises.
It is generally considered a bad sign, human rights-wise, if Dick Cheney is a fan of your work.
Salon's Glenn Greenwald, reliably outraged, lays out the case that Obama has, in fact, simply continued the policies that Bush and Cheney laid out in the wake of 9/11:
"Providing evidence and proving their accusations is exactly the opposite of what Obama officials did in the Awlaki killing … And rather than present evidence to the public, The Most Transparent Administration Ever did what it normally does in such cases: it ran to the media, usually anonymously, to justify its actions by – as Time put it – 'dishing about classified intelligence which they say shows Awlaki was not just a YouTube inciter but also an operational planner for al Qaeda's dangerous Yemen branch.' In other words: we have evidence to prove our accusations, but it's secret and we won't show it to you; instead, the media will go forth and dutifully assure everyone we said there is secret evidence and you'll just trust us.
"The reason they do this is because they know it will work."
I go on about this because I'm personally uncomfortable with government-sanctioned murder, but if pressed, I'd have to admit that it falls somewhat outside the purview of this blog: though there is some back and forth about Awlaki's death on the fringes of the GOP race, it will have about zero impact on the 2012 election – except to rob conspiracy theorists of a terrorist to link Obama to. So, yes, Obama supporters got their win.
