@jimgov, I'm not sure how you arrive at the thought that this is via international law... you seem to be inferring (based on the sentence previous) that it has to do with the approval of the National Security Council. I will point out that the National Security Council (NSC) is a U.S. executive branch organization... it's purpose is to advise on international issues... but it is not an international organization itself. As we found with John Yoo, being charged with giving expert advise on the legality of something that the president wants desperately to do does not even come close to guaranteeing that the advice will be valid... particularly when you are working directly for the president (as everyone in the NSC is)... as it creates a direct conflict of interest.

(that's odd - my post vaporized...)
OK - as a convenience for me, since I don't want to write the whole thing twice, I'll just say the following:
@jimgov, you note the National Security Council... this is not an international organization... the fact that they give advice to the president on international matters is of limited comfort... consider John Yoo who gave very bad advice to Bush on torture... as they are working for the president they are in a situation of conflict of interest... they are going to want to justify what he wants to do - rather than take a fully uninterested look at it. Besides... where is the judicial involvement?

...my bad (I was on page 2 - and didn't notice my successful post)

Petty, I know that conservatives and Republicans are different but the two are used so synonymously nowadays that I didn't think anyone would differentiate them in practice. The word liberal is improperly used as well. I don't bash conservatives with ease... I agree with them on most economic issues. I have more respect for someone who is consistent in their views and holds a stance in an issue rather than someone who is just a political fanboy of either party and regurgitates the most current party line without critical thought or regard to consistency.

I'm not backing down from Beck though. =P

I hope he's dead lol.

@ dexter morgan - Did you even read the article? Did you read the first sentence of the part that I copied from the article? This is NOT against international law. As for the NSA, I was making the point that the President did not just say "lets kill him." This had to go through a process that was not just rubber stamped.

If there's anyone here who doesn't think Beck is a total idiot, please raise your hand =)

I do :)

This is an insult to idiots, Beck is far worse.

For the people who are concerned about the fact that this guy is a US Citizen and may therefore have certain rights, just out of interest, what is the procedure for revoking someone's citizenship? Is there a process? If so, why can't the USA revoke his citizenship in this case?

Well, as a non US citizen, I find really interesting the debate about constitution and citizenship as I have my degreee on Law, but have few knowledge about us laws.
But I find more interesting that no single american find completely against any international law that US president thinks he have the right to kill (or even arrest) someone in a foreign country (as far as I know, Iemen is a country recognized by the UN).
So now we have the world police and the world executioners too? And you really think that will end the terrorism or just bring more people to hate US?

rdrivera, no there is no thought that terrorism will end with the death of one man. That is not the intent, as I expect you already know, and are asking rhetorical questions less than honest reasons.

@Dingle - It was more or less a rethorical question. But I was not talking about the death of just one man, but about US thinking he have the right to kill people on foreign countries

So why not ask the question you want to, without the rhetorical righteousness?

I haven't read the thread, but something in the article called my atention:

“We take direct actions against terrorists in the intelligence community,” he said. “If we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that.”

Why is an american's life more important than anyone else's, such that they need a special permission to take an action that "might" end up with an american killed, whereas they need no permision to take actions that are guaranteed to get non-americans killed?

And what about the US soldiers that risk themselves on the line of fire? Do they ask Obama about those too?

@Jamiet- a quick google search found me this; I'm not positive how accurate it is, but there were similar answers given elsewhere, so I'll take it for fact unless someone can clear it up better then I,
"Under Supreme Court rulings, those born in the USA have citizenship, which can only be lost by voting in a foreign election, volunteering for service in a foreign military, or filing renunciation papers with the Secretary of State if resident in the USA, or the nearest embassy if residing outside the USA."

Rdriveria +1- Anyone that disagrees with the war in Iraq (which I assumed was the majority) should disagree with these actions as well, because they are based on the same principles of the US policing the globe.

DingleberryJones- His question seemed pretty clear to me, "And you really think that will end the terrorism or just bring more people to hate US?" Is this action one that will incite more attacks against us or help end them?

"And what about the US soldiers that risk themselves on the line of fire? Do they ask Obama about those too?" That makes no sense. Our army is composed completely of voluntary enlistments, and everyone joining any armed forces knows that there is a chance of death. As far as I know, Obama isn't putting their name on a hit list either.

Xapi- I'm not sure where you are from, but in America an American's life is more important, or is at least protected by more laws. I'm sure that this is the case in any country you go to. You haven't read the thread, so I'll summarize. An American citizen has a right to a just trial, and cannot be claimed guilty of any crime, unless he is give this. The government putting him on a hit list, is the same thing that happened before the Habeas Corpus, when the king could kill/imprison whoever he wants.

"I'm not sure where you are from, but in America an American's life is more important, or is at least protected by more laws. I'm sure that this is the case in any country you go to."

I live in Argentina, and no, an argentinian's life isn't more important than a foreigner's. Every men has a right to a fair trial before being convicted (there's no death penalty), but I think foreigners may be expelled from the country without trial.

If I enter the US ilegally, or even legally, do I loose the right to a fair trial?

"The government putting him on a hit list,"

I don't think this is the case. I think Obama authorized an action to aprehend this guy, with the knowledge that this action might end up with his death.

I still think it's wrong, but because of what rdriviera said (that the US shouldn't be able to police the world, they should ask for the government of Yemen to arrest him and send him to America for trial.)

Do Americans think it's right that non citizens can be killed without a fair trial by the US armed forces, weather that is inside or outside US borders?

This is a real question I'd like americans to answer.

Xapi, "I live in Argentina, and no, an argentinian's life isn't more important than a foreigner's."

Is that your opinion? Or is that the law of the land?

A big part of Hunter's argument here seems to revolve around the fact that this guy is an American citizen, thus he is entitled to certain protections.

Hypothetically, if we asked crazy-cleric-guy about his citizenship, would he readily identify himself as American? My guess is no. Perhaps he hasn't filed his papers with the Secretary of whatnot, but he appears to have rejected his "American-hood" regardless. That has to count for something.

(American-hood, American-ship, whatever.)

" Is that your opinion? Or is that the law of the land? "

I have never, in 25 years alive, heard of any law being in effect, applied, or proposed, that discriminates the death of an argentinian citizen to be treated differently than a non-citizen's death.

@Xapi- I do disagree with assassinations in general. There are a few exceptions during a time of war (Hitler, Bin Laden, etc...) that I do believe are acceptable, but this doesn't fall into that category in my opinion. The reason that I am arguing the American citizen angle is because it is not unconstitutional to kill a foreign citizen. It may be against a ton of International laws/treaties, but I'm more concerned with the government obeying its own constitution.

"I don't think this is the case. I think Obama authorized an action to aprehend this guy, with the knowledge that this action might end up with his death."

No, because then this guy would not be the first American to end up on the list. Timothy Mcveigh comes to mind as a recent American terrorist, but you didn't see Clinton adding his name to a list like this. If a person happens to be killed while resisting arrest, then that is fine (unpreferable, but still acceptable), but the way the articles read is that they are going in with a shot-first mind set. Out of all the criminal cases that have existed, this method has NEVER been approved for an American citizen before. Not for the Mafia, KKK, serial killers...

Preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. The Constitution says that the government must protect its citizens. Therefore, in order to preserve the Constitution, Obama must obey the Constitution. Yeah, they should have tried to take him alive, but every once in a while, shooting an armed bank robber to protect inoccent people is nessecary.

Why would Clinton add his name to a list? It's not related at all.

This guy was included in a list of Al Qaeda operatives that were especially dangerous to the United States and lethal force is authorized when trying to apprehend. Since he was American (renounced, but still born here) it needed to be approved but it's still because he was on list #1 which some random American isn't going to be..

@TMW- Can you provide a direct quote for that? I don't recall the constitution actually saying that it is the responsibility of the Gov to defend the people.

@Hibiskiss- I was giving an example of some former 'terrorists' that were not added to the list. It is only under Obama (The original idea looks like it comes from W though) that we actually have a hit list for Americans. If their orders had simply retrieve the man, dead or alive then there would be no need to be approved by Obama. The only reasoning for this is that they aren't going to attempt to bring him in.

He is still innocent until proven guilty, lest we all forget.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2010/0407/Anwar-al-Awlaki-Is-it-legal-to-kill-an-American-in-war-on-terror

Killing him is "probably legal"