Al who?
At this point I think these announcements of the killing of all these tin-pot wannabe practically-nobodies have gone over the top. Who’s next, Osama bin Laden’s barber?
I see the need for the Constitution’s ban on extrajudicial killings to stay intact moreso than assassinating a US citizen without oversight. I’m just crazy that way.
Traitor!
Valid military strike against the enemy, outside the bounds of the 1stdisaster Amendment. If Tokyo Rose had been killed in a bombing it would be no different. Semantically I haven’t heard it confirmed yet that it was us that killed him. Further if he was living in a terrorist camp, which are routinely bombed with no complaints from the libtard doves then it’s even more difficult to bitch about this. Operating out of one of those camps puts you in the camp of the enemy at a time of war.
Military strikes against enemy formations are not and never will be restricted based on Constitutional concerns. The SCOTUS is never going to rule any attack on the enemy forces is subject to some court preapproval.
Lazy and ignorant! The hits keep on coming. I’m not sure what you expected me to do other than give you something to read because obviously you’re not expecting me to start my own investigation of the guy. But it doesn’t matter. I didn’t say he was in charge of Al Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula (I knew he wasn’t) or the biggest terrorist in the world or anything like that. I realize he’s sometimes depicted that way. Here’s what really happened: you made a mistake by saying all he did was make YouTube videos that are protected by the First Amendment because that makes your argument look better. I pointed out that he’s actually been communicating with terrorists and terrorist wannabes for about a decade, and that’s not protected by the First Amendment because it’s action, not speech, and it looks an awful lot like conspiring in terrorist attacks, supporting a terrorist group, and perhaps even planning one embarrassingly failed attack, none of which is even close to protected speech. That’s like saying it’s protected speech that if I start meeting with members of the mafia and talking about who they could whack and what banks they could rob. I realize the government can’t shoot me for doing those things, but they’re not protected speech - they’re criminal activities.
The Constitution simply doesn’t say “unless done by the military”. It applies to all citizens, including really bad guys. Deciding that the President can order the killing of a US citizen without due process flies in the face of the Constitution. Unless, of course, you are comfortable with the premise that the entire world is now, for the first time in history, the "battlefield’ for military actions. Me, I’m not comfortable with the conclusion that the Constitution allows the President to kill a US citizen on US soil simply because it was a “military strike”.
What if Bush had done it?
It’s the citizen part which bothers me. I don’t really care if we target a foreign commander. Al-Awaki wasn’t. So I’m in agreement there. I just don’t condemn, say, the Pacific Forces in WW2 for hunting down Yamamoto.
But this was not something I condone, even if I don’t really care emotionally.
Suspicion is not the same as proof.
That would only be a valid comparison if Awlaki had an operational role in Al Qaeda. That’s never been proven.
And how would the government go about proving that you engaged in criminal activity? Think back to your civics classes.
What if he had? What difference would it make?
The same people on the left handwaving this away would be howling in protest.
It’s also not the same as “all he did was make YouTube videos.” Meeting with half a dozen guys who went on to committ terrorist attacks (including two or three of the September 11th guys) is an awful lot like involvement in a criminal conspiracy by terrorists, and it’s not YouTube videos.
I’m actually for the assassination of those people who post “cute kitty” videos.
I have definitive proof that he made YouTube videos. All you have is your suspicions.
Use of military force approved by Congress, the military is commanded by the President to use it against the enemy forces. I’m sorry what are you confused about? The constitution most definitely allows the President to order military strikes against enemy formations and the concerns you have are outside the bounds of that discussion.
The fortunate part is that with this execution of the latest of al Qaeda’s Number Twos, we have decisively won both the propaganda war and the bang-bang-kaboom war. We are victorious, our enemies are now our friends, and we can finally rest easy in our big comfy beds.
Enemy formations? He was driving in a car. He wasn’t in some POW camp ringed by wooden watchtowers and machine gun nests that Chuck Norris happened upon.
Then we have much in common. 
And I’m not ignoring the more valid concerns about the drone program. I had qualms about it before and I still do. The fact that Al-Awlaki is a citizen doesn’t matter to me - assassinations are troubling regardless of the passports involved. But saying the guy only made YouTube videos is stupid and incorrect. It’s like saying Al Capone was just a tax cheat. The issue here is that it’s a global problem that doesn’t have a good solution. The Yemeni government is not capable of dealing with these guys on its own (which is why it allows the drone strikes) and in that sense it’s not that different from Pakistan and Afghanistan. If there’s a better option for dealing with these guys, I’d support that, but I don’t see what it is. It’s not possible to invade all these countries for a huge number of reasons and arresting them seems to be equally impractical.
You asserting it doesn’t make it true.
I suspect you’re wearing lace panties, and have been every day for the last 10 years. I have no proof of it, mind you, BUT IT SURE SEEMS THAT WAY.