jimgov is right. would anyone argue that osoma deserves a trial? Should we wait until this nut case is successful in a terrorist plot that kills the innocent. He has not declared war on our " corrupt government ", he declared war on you and everyone else in this country. Who's to say he would not set a bomb off in your town Hunter.

Here's the problem - If the guy actively is levying war against the United States, or has given aid to an enemy of the United States, it is considered treason, which is punishable by death. However, a charge of treason MUST be proven in a court of law, and every United States citizen is GUARANTEED the right to due process of law.

I am not saying I want this guy hanging around if he is going to attack the US, but it is the process that must be upheld. Not to protect him per se, but to instead protect ALL citizens. If they can 'ignore' the Constitution and Bill of Rights today, who is to say they won't do it again tomorrow?

Why did we perceive Saddam Hussein as such a bad guy? Because he violated many of the human rights that we hold dear. He ordered the execution of his opposition, he imprisoned, tortured, and murdered the people whom he felt were a threat to his government, and he did it all based on nothing more than his own directive. There was no trial to protect these people, and they did not get an opportunity to refute the charges against them.

I am in no way trying to compare Obama to Saddam, just trying to show that the US Constitution exists specifically to protect ALL citizens of the United States.

Odds are that they are not wrong, and this guy is guilty as hell... but WHAT IF they are wrong?

Well said jayruegg.

Osama isn't a citizen, so the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to him. However, this guy is and he is guaranteed the right to a fair trial.

What I would like to see is them at least attempting to take him into custody instead of trying to assassinate him. If he resists, then no one blames the government for his death, but the way it sounds is that they are just trying to eliminate him. Whether that means calling to him over a bull-horn before firing a missle or whatever, then so be it. But he has to be given the chance to surrender.

Also, the wording of the article makes it sound like the evidence they have is iffy, "They say they believe that he has become a recruiter for the terrorist network." If the government had concrete evidence, then there would be no 'believes' or 'probably's' in that article. It would say something like, 'Awlaki, the man responsible for so-and-so attacks...' And does a recruiter really pose a HUGE threat to us like they make it seem?

My main issue with this whole thing, is what's stopping them from declaring others 'enemies of the state.' We have all seen the movies before, and is it that far-fetched?

Hunters plan it is then. Call him on the bull horn, if he surrenders, fine. If not, launch the missle

Just as a follow up - "...no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

If the government can confirm treason, based on one of those two methods, then execute away! If not, they HAVE to give him the opportunity to surrender, as Hunter49r said.

@jayruegg

Following your line of thought, it really doesn't matter whether they are right or wrong. The fact is that if you let a government cut corners once, it will do it again. That's why crises are such dangerous things; they almost always lead to a governmental power-grab. There was actually a really really good episode of MI-5 (actually they changed the name to Spooks I think) where some radical party basically tried to implement very anti-human rights policies. It really put in perspective how quickly things can go south once you step over that first line.

As far as the issue at hand of whether it is right or not to assassinate American citizens, in my opinion as long as there is significant proof and the powers-that-be deem it necessary, then go for it.

People can be tried in absentia... if there is not enough evidence to try him, there is not enough evidence to kill him away from a battlefield. This is rather disturbing. As Mr. Greenfield (and Al Gore) point out, if a president can imprison, torture or kill an American citizen without a trial, what can't a president do?

Well, for once Obama did the right thing. If he did order that assasination, it's legal. A president's very first priority is the safety of the country he serves. If Obama felt that this cleric was jepordizing the safety of Americans, and Obama felt that this could only be solved by killing him, then so be it. Anyone who threatens Americans is fair game for assasination.

Let's remember that even the worst dictators are often elected... what distinguishes us from a dictatorship is not so much the elections, it is having and following a Constitution that guarantees basic rights. Moves like this one by the executive branch and the acquiescence by most of the media is a very bad sign for our future as a free country. I'm not saying Obama is Hitler or some such nonsense... but the foundation is being laid for dictatorship, whether consciously or not. It is a very bad slippery slope that the Washington power structure (as lead by Bush and now Obama) is on.

@ TMW- a president is not a king. He can't just order whatever he wants to happen, and then it becomes law. The only place where this kind of thing is legal would be in a dictatorship.

@TMW No its not legal, the man is an American citizen, a traitor most likely but an American nonetheless. He has a Constitutional right to a trial by his peers, this isn't like the wiretaps which were at worst Constitutionally questionable, this is the ordered murder of an American. Neither the President nor Congress have the authority to order the assassination of an American citizen, end of story.

"A president's very first priority is the safety of the country he serves"

Actually, I think it's to protect the Constitution of the United States of America.

Agreed with kreilly89

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

"Osama isn't a citizen, so the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to him."

And now it finally comes out. I knew Hunter was one of the right wing wackos from the start, but he did try to disguise his beliefs throughout this thread. You are not concerned about the US or the Constitution or anything else. You are just anti-Obama and want us to listen to your ravings. Sad.

Geez, every time George Bush did ANYTHING, we'd hear about the slippery slope. Now, with a new president, the same argument. If you go back in history, you can find the slippery slope arguments argued by the opposing party for centuries.

For those calling for a trial, we can't bring him in without risking the lives of our troops. Assuming we have good reason to kill him, which I believe we do by ordering this, its not worth a single soldier's life to bring him in so we can avoid the slippery slope. The slippery slope argument is crap. He's been warned. If he's innocent, he can walk into any embassy now and surrender for trial.

Would you feel better if we revoked his citizenship and then killed him? You'd sleep better at night knowing we didn't violate the constitution?

Jimgov, uh what?

Woops. My bad. I misread the sentence that I just copied. I apologize profusely. I should read what I am copying more carefully.

@TMW, so you would disagree with Thomas Paine when he said that in America the law is king (as opposed to in a monarchy where the king is the law)? When taking the presidential oath, I think it is important to remember that he promises to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. That is his charge... not to what he sees fit as a king or a dictator would.

@Jimgov- lol, no problem. :D

I say kill him. Or send him to Detroit.

@Dingleberry, I admit that I did not read the New York Times article - was he indicted by a Grand Jury? Was a criminal trial called? How was he "warned"?... or do we simply expect him to surrender because of something the president or his staff said?

...who says he has heard what is being said - I only heard about it this afternoon and I live here.

Agreed, but one could argue that the constition demands the president protect the american people as there commander in chief. "Against all eneimes foriegn and domestic" I dont agree that the president should issue a death warrant for an American citizen without a just trial. But if said person sneaks back, supplies, or aids in the killing of American citizens where does the blame lie? I just pose these questions to generate educated debate.

It is a political move for the president to appease the discontent with him domestically. Notice he signed this mans death warrant in December, it is only being leaked out (again) now because he is also taking a different approach on nukes, that hardline conservatives dislike. Appeasing.

Im a libertarian conservative. However I agree with the president on his new nuke stance which i believe exlplifies "speak softly but carry a big stick". But disagree with him on many other things, (Healthcare, Amensty, big government, stimulus, welfare state).

@Hibiskiss: I respect your views, however I suggest you do some reading on what the other side has to think, with an open mind. However Obama is not a moderate, that arguement cannot be made with a rational mind and facts.

Overall another thought is that the Law and Justice are not the same. Read Melville's Billy Budd, Basically the law or constitution says we do somthing, but no law is perfect and justice doesnt always come through the law.

@Dexter- I didn't see anything about a Trial or Jury in the NYTimes article or the Washington Post, which I've just started glossing over. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/06/AR2010040604121.html?hpid=topnews]

One quote that I did agree with was, "U.S. citizenship hardly gives you blanket protection overseas to plot the murder of your fellow citizens." But we have to go through the same channels as everyone else to extradite criminals. Why should we be able to bypass international laws? If someone tried to do this in America; I bet everyone would be pissed at them.

my last was to Darwyn

"I just pose these questions to generate educated debate."

That's practically out of Glenn Beck's mouth. =P

Re: Dingle, I do not support the execution of citizens without being given due trial.

Re: PettyOfficer, I say this is a move more typical of conservatives because generally they seem more willing to sacrifice certain rights in the name of security. I know a lot paint themselves as constitutionalists but I don't really remember that much uproar from the conservative camp when habeas corpus was suspended and the Patriot Act was instituted in order to fight terrorism. This looks like a continuation of this national security over liberty trend. Before you respond, I'm an economic conservative (libertarian), but a social progressive. I don't think conservatives are stupid, I just think this is a very conservative move of Obama.

I feel like this is the sort of issue where it shows who's really a liberal and who's really a conservative. If they choose sides based on the issue and consistency in their own views or if they choose based on whether their pro-Obama or anti-Obama.

Since many people did not actually read the article...

As a general principle, international law permits the use of lethal force against individuals and groups that pose an imminent threat to a country, and officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the list of targets. In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. People on the target list are considered to be military enemies of the United States and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination first approved by President Gerald R. Ford.

Both the C.I.A. and the military maintain lists of terrorists linked to Al Qaeda and its affiliates who are approved for capture or killing, former officials said. But because Mr. Awlaki is an American, his inclusion on those lists had to be approved by the National Security Council, the officials said.

So this is via international law. This is a list that is kept of those who can be captured or killed anywhere in the world. And it is approved by the NSA.