Is there ever a good reason to allow the killing of American citizens without due process?

Given all the evidence against him, Was it wrong to take him out then?

Yes, because this was not an incident in which an American happened to be a soldier among enemies in battle, but the deliberate targeting of an American citizen not engaged in actual warfare. Hence, Zero could have easily taken his ample evidence against Al Awlaki to a judge and obtained a finding and a warrant. Given how few are such cases, there is no excuse for doing otherwise.

This isn't a question of whether he should have been killed, but how the process should work.

“...considering how the FBI overreacted a bit in arresting the Michigan Militia folks, imagine had they decided to perform a drone strike instead...”

Today the evil Clinton/Reno duo would order the Branch Davidian’s taken out with a drone. And there was absolutely NO due process in that Unconstitutional attack and destruction at Waco.

And I believe the Obama/Holder/Napolitano is even more evil. They trash the Constitution at every turn to suit their evil endeavors launched against ‘we the people’.

The whole point of this is that currently, there is no due process. That is, an American citizen should at least be charged with treason, PUBLICLY, and not simply wiped out by Obama at his video game console.

If we want to develop some other process, that’s fine.

No, it's not fine. The 5th Amendment says the following:

Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The phrase "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" means that the first part applies:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger

The underlined is the due process of law (actually the 6th also applies, but at the step after "presentment or indictment" -- the Grand jury could, for any reason it deems, refuse to indict/present). The italicized means that there is an exception to requiring presentment/indictment, and that is the legitimate battlefield (which I would contend these targeted drone-attacks are not, but that is tangential).

The 6th clearly states that in all criminal prosecutions there are rights that the defendant has: jury-trial, ability to call witnesses, defense-attorney, etc. By creating anti-terrorism laws congress moved things from the battlefield to being matters of criminal law and therefore the 6th must apply.

This is not to say that terrorists should be coddled, it is to say that (a) the Constitution must be followed, and (b) the Congress is blithely unaware of the consequences of its actions [some term this lack of foresight, or even a moment's introspection --which is resultant of the "Oh-my-god-we-have-to-do-something-anything-now! mentality"-- the Law of Unintended Consequences].

We have legitimate battlefield engagements, but Obama is not using them. He has handicapped our military and they can’t even kill the enemy in self-defense without ending up on trial themselves.

Having Obama go around and personally pick out targets rather than have them defeated in military engagements is not a good thing, but when the targets are Americans, no matter how treasonous, it’s much worse. Americans who have turned into treasonous enemies need to be publicly declared and subject to some process in which they have the right to defend themselves. This happens even in the case of courts martial (referred to in the 5th Amendment), where there may be a different standard of evidence, but basically there is still a public airing of the charges and identification of the defendant. Even if an American citizen is charged in absentia, this is a public declaration and makes the whole thing aboveboard and in accordance with our Constitution. It’s not a secret proceeding based on the unilateral decision of somebody at the top.

This new policy, by the way, also permits other people in the executive branch to pick out targets, including American citizens.

Happy with that? I’m not.

Yes, I think so.

Today has been a very disturbing day on the Obama front, between this and the strange revelation from the Panetta hearings that Obama seems to have been completely missing during the Benghazi episode. They couldn’t even reach him by phone, and he spoke to one of them (I’m not sure it was Panetta) in the single phone call he made to them early in the evening when things were breaking, telling them to consult his aides.

He was probably getting his beauty sleep for his trip to Vegas and had left strict instructions not to be bothered. Or maybe he was sitting at his video console dialing up drone hits in between “shooting skeet.”

The other bizarre thing is that the 11 Senators who wrote him a letter objecting to his drone strikes on Americans were either hard-left Dems or raving liberal RINOs.

Strange day.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.