Think about this seriously. A few years ago, most here were outraged over the due-process-free spying on American citizens by the Bush administration.
A few days ago, many here were aghast at the cheering that Rick Perry got on the stage at the Republican debate when he was asked about the hundreds of executions he has overseen.
Then, many were similarly appalled at the execution of Troy Davis.
And yet, this morning, there are cheers for the killing of a US citizen, who was placed on an approved assassination list by President Obama. This person was killed, not on a battlefield, not in an area where US soldiers are engaged, or where a pseudo-war state exists (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya). This person was, granted, something of a mouthpiece or propagandist for Al Quaeda, but there was never any sort of trial or hearing to judge his guilt or whether the president could, in essence, be judge, jury and executioner for an American citizen. Well, now we have the answer. The president can declare anyone, including American citizens, to be a "sufficiently bad person", place them on an assassination list with no due process (Obama's DOJ successfully argued to the courts that the decision to put him on the list was a state secret, and not subject to judicial review), then commit military forces to have them killed.
There are many "justifications" for this action being offered in several other diaries here, but they all revolve around "the president said he was a bad guy". A few examples below the fold.
Sandbox
Have you heard the videos and writings of this guy advocated murdering Americans? get real.
There are multiple organizations, even within the US (the Army of God, for example) who advocate killing people (specifically, abortion doctors). Should they all be assassinated without trial? There have been historical examples, of people who preach violence, but even recently, the SCOTUS has judged that violent speech is protected under the First Amendment. Is preaching jihad now grounds for execution? Under what law? But who cares? He was a "declared bad guy", so kill him.
johnny wurster
By being part of the operations of al-Qaeda, he made himself part of the hostilities. It's not his speech, but his participation in al-Qaeda.
There was no evidence presented (indeed, no due process at all), that he was an "operational" part of al Quaeda. Propaganda, and preaching jihad, yes, but that is covered by the First Amendment. Material support for terrorism? Maybe, but that's a civil charge, and as far as I'm aware, not one that carries the death penalty. And even if it did, well, that just brings us back to the lack of due process. No evidence, no trial, just the president acting as judge, jury and executioner. But who cares? He was a "declared bad guy", so kill him.
Sandbox
AlAlaqi was not in the USA (where we could arrest). He was in Yemen beyond the reach of Yemeni police.
I can remember a time when the Bush administration's "global war on terror" and "the world is a battlefield" were rejected by people here as insanity. The US is not the world's policeman. We do not, despite all appearances to the contrary, have the right to do whatever we want to whoever we want, wherever we want, whenever we want. And if any other country claimed the same rights that we assert, sending commandoes into the US to assassinate someone, or sending armed drones to drop missiles on assassination targets, etc, we'd go nuts. If the person cannot, for various reasons, be captured, we do not automatically get to blow them up. But who cares? He was a "declared bad guy", so kill him.
Dave in AZ
The Bin Laden analagy [sic] is that citizen and non-citizen should be treated alike. I don't get that since Al-Awlaki that makes him so special.
And here is where the mentality gets very dangerous. On the surface, it's saying that because Bin Laden was killed by a commando team, any terrorist, no matter their nationality, should get the same treatment. However, let's turn that around, and use Al Awlaki as the base case. The president put him on an assassination list, with no due process, successfully argued that it was a state secret and not subject to judicial review, and killed him. What is there that stops him (or any future president), form doing the same to anyone for any reason? If the decision is not subject to any oversight, what stops it from being a tool of political assassination, other than hoping and praying that those in power will not abuse it? But who cares? He was a "declared bad guy", so kill him (and pray that you never become some teabagger president's "declared bad guy").
Geekesque
The most important lesson: Do not join terrorist organizations that have declared war on the United States and are dedicated to killing as many Americans as possible.
This is probably the clearest version of "he was a bad guy, so kill him" that I've seen so far. "He supported Al Quaeda, so kill him." Never mind any possible due process. Never mind that he was not engaged in anything more than speech, and not on an actual battlefield. Never mind that he was an American citizen. Who cares? He was a "declared bad guy", so kill him.
There was a line I used to hear fairly often in these presidential power discussions. It went something like "Would you want president [insert name of opposing party member] to have this power?" So, ask yourself this: would you want president Perry, Palin, Bachmann, or Cheney to have the power to order a military assassination on anyone, provided that they put the name on the due-process-free and judicial oversight-free assassination list?