The notion that due process applies to war operations is as baffling as the suggestion that, if an American abandons his country and takes up arms against it, we are somehow obliged to shoot around him to get at our “real” enemies.  How did this problem not somehow arise in WWII when hundreds of Italian-Americans visiting Italy when the war broke out were conscripted into Mussolini’s war effort, and ended up fighting against invading GI’s?

He is a Paul supporter, if that tells you anything.

Better be careful, Joe. You don’t want people to think you’re an Obama supporter do you?

No, he was on the battlefield planning and ordering attacks and engaging in recruiting more traitors just like himself.

The constitution is the only legal standard I recognize, and it says our government has a duty to defend us “against all enemies, foreign and domestic”. What more do you need? 

“Scarymatt, would you feel differently if the people targeted for assassination were say, some American militia members who were guilty of “clinging to their guns and religion” and saying some not-nice things about  President Obama?  Sorry, but that’s not a sort of precedent I want to set.”

That precendent was set in the Clinton Administration.  Twice, as  Irecall.

You’re absolutely right, Richard.  And it’s that sort of thing I am talking about.  The level of straw man arguments her are disturbing.  I am not saying I am against the targeted killing.  I am for it, just within a legal standard.   A lot of people on this board just seem to be willing to trust Obama’s judgment. . .

There is no question of “due process” for those engaged in hostilities against the United States on foreign soil.  The fact he was a citizen just makes him a traitor; it does not confer rights of criminal defendants under the Constitution to hostiles in martial actions – without respect to their citizenship status.

For instance, there were thousands of summary executions of Southerners, who the United States never recognized as anything but US citizens, for aiding rebellion in the Civil War. 

I don’t think we need an opinion from the 9 black robed scofflaws on this or any other subject. All of them have been pretty sorry when it’s come to the law, at one time or another.

I hope that such killings do not become emotionally routine. But, given Awlaki’s activities unfriending him with a Hellfire does not disturb me. He didn’t exactly present himself at the Embassy to turn himself in.

Ironically, if he had turned himself in, we would have been forced to put him on trial and he might be next door to Lindh instead of being fertilizer.

Anarchy doesn’t work because man is not perfect, nor is he perfectible in his fallen state. One of the founders put it quite well, “because men are not angels, we have government.” OTOH, you go seriously wrong when you allow Government out of its cage. You end up with Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Clinton, and Obama, and a government that kills and enslaves.

Dave Your historical precedent does not hold water. The south was fighting for its independence, and the north was fighting to prevent it. Mencken pretty much demolished Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address for the emotional nonsense it was.

The straw that broke the camel’s back was a direct order, etc,

Then you see more than most of us the dangers of too much big government, because you’ve experienced it directly. So what’s all this about anarchists versus statists? There’s a big difference in believing in small government that limits itself to its constitutional mandated duties, and a belief that the state should regulate and control everything, or at least large, significant areas of the economy.

But conducting war and securing our borders is one of the prerogatives of the federal government that is clearly defined. That’s why I just don’t see what the fuss is about over this guy. What kind of slippery slope are you worried about that we haven’t already slid down into?

I’m far more worried about the US taking a back seat and deferring to NATO, the EU, and the UN, and potentially other internationalist bodies, than I am of them killing some traitorous active insurgent they clearly had a constitutional right to kill.

And that’s why Mencken is such a well-beloved, honored and admired figure to this very day. Who was he again?

Have you ever even read the Gettysburg Address? It’s been a while since I have, admittedly, but as I recall there wasn’t a lot of vitriol and hatred in it directed at the south, it actually sought to honor all the men that gave their lives. It was a dedication of a freaking cemetery for the people that died in that battle. Of course it was emotional, but nonsense?

It was meant to be a step toward the long process of healing the nation. I’m not one of these Lincoln worshipers who hold that he did no wrong. I don’t think he was the President Washington was, but he was still great and probably did save our asses. I think you need to go back and re-read the Gettysburg Address with an open mind.

It always amuses the hell out of me when I hear bullshit about a slave society fighting for its freedom.