[RochesterFan]

al-Awlaki was involved in active rebellion against the government and citizens of the United States. He was plotting attacks that put our citizens and soldiers, like my son who is deployed, in harm’s way. I tell you what - l don’t lose a wink of sleep seeing this piece of work get a drone up the wazoo. Let me pose a question to those who do: Are you willing to put your own child or one whom you are close to in harm’s way to bring jokers like this to “justice”? There are evil people in this world who want to take away our freedom and force us to live under Sharia law. Not a choice - they want to impose it on us. The lives of my son and those who serve with him to protect us are far more important to me than grabbing any of these militants. Others are free to disagree. That is the beauty of our free country - something scum like al-Awlak want to take away from us.

[NonValueAdded]

Just out of curiosity, would the correct procedure have been to strip him of his citizenship with a due-process procedure? I assume that would be done in absentia.

[SeaWolf]

He left the realm of civil law when he declared war on the U.S. He was military target and was treated as such.

[AndrewC]

al-Awlaki had at least 10 months to dispute the targeting. He didn't

NASSER AL-AULAQI, on his own behalf
and as next friend of Anwar Al-Aulaqi,
Plaintiff,
v.
BARACK H. OBAMA, in his official
capacity as President of the United States;
ROBERT M. GATES, in his official
capacity as Secretary of Defense; and
LEON E. PANETTA, in his official
capacity as Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency,
      Defendants.

The point being that Awlaki knew he was targeted and could have hired a lawyer for himself to dispute the government's action. He failed to do so in a timely manner. Justice served.(although I donot consider the controversy as involving crime. It is war. The military is not to enforce law. It is to provide for the common defense.)