And from Hot Air's headlines (and elsewhere; Drudge?) the MFM is also quoting the UN trying to tie the U.S. military to handing prisoners over to the Afghans for torture. That sounds familiar too.

And I'd read John Yoo on this issue more than any other source.

Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman killed a lot of Americans without due process; like Awlaki, they'd taken up arms against their country. Bottom line, Awlaki was an agent of a foreign power and an unlawful combatant. His citizenship was irrelevant. The right thing to do is still the right thing to do, even when President Milli Vanilli is the one doing it.

If anyone doubts Bush and Cheney would also have ordered the killing of Al Awalki they would be crazy. Of course, if anyone doubts Senator Obama would have been upset about the killing of Alawaki would be equally crazy.

Obama did the right thing. Regardless of citizenship Alalwaki was a demonstarted enemey of the US and had conducted acts of war.

Sucks to be on the wrong side of a predator.

The right decision was made, the lawyers can figure out why it was legal.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Obama.

Taking up arms against one's own country is high treason, which in the US is a capital crime (properly so). Establishing that would "normally"
require a trial, but if the traitor is a fugitive from justice then he de facto waives his right to a trial.

I am not a lawyer but presumably the legal argument would go something like that. A simple trial could establish the fact of treason, and the fact of evasion of justice.

It is odd to suggest that the US should not fire back in a hot war. The generals are legit targets in war and Canada has even lost a few. Citizenship doesn't give anyone a pass. In war there is no obligation not to target anyone. Should Awlaki have offered a surrender he could have had his trial.

Just another example of Obozo shredding the constitution. This is another incremental process just like every other aspect of the encroaching totalitarian state has been; target someone so repulsive that very few people are going to rush to their defense and then extend statist powers.

The US has not declared a state of war and hence all of their actions are illegal. US citizens have constitutional protections which have just been violated by the US government. There were many other options that the US had such as revoking his US citizenship first or charging him with treason. None of this was done and there was just an extra-judicial execution. How long before people will be shot for refusing to have their genitals fondled at airports?

Sound farfetched? Just look at what happened with the right to privacy when laws against possession of kiddie pron were passed - I objected as I could see where this was going but the majority of "Conservatives" went along with this unwarranted statist interference in ones personal life. Now the state claims to have the right to search ones complete computer and to hold it hostage unless passwords for encrypted files are provided. This execution by Predator is just the start of a US police state for which I do blame Bush as he's the moron who assumed that no-one would abuse the police-state powers that he passed into law. The author's of the US constitution foresaw totalitarians like Obozo might come to power but Bush didn't seem to understand.

The US Constitution specifically defines what constitutes the crime of treason. This was written into the Constitution at the Constitutional Convention in order to prevent excesses like those of various British monarchs, who had tried and executed people for what often was simple political opposition to monarchical actions.

Article III, Section 3 states "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Pursuant to this, the United States Criminal Code, Title 18, Section 2381 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

There you have it. Under American law, what constitutes the crime of treason and the legal penalty, death or 5 years to life imprisonment, plus a pro forma fine. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to add 1 and 1 and get 2, regarding the acts of war against the United States by the two American-born Al Qaeda terrorists.

Re Loki's extremely uninformed 1:42 AM remark:

1. "The US has not declared a state of war and hence all of their actions are illegal."
On September 12, 2001, after Pres. Bush addressed Congress in joint session, Congress passed a Joint Resolution authorizing the President to make war on Al Qaeda and any of it's allies and take any military actions he saw fit.

2. "US citizens have constitutional protections which have just been violated by the US government."
See my 1:42 AM post.

3. "There were many other options that the US had such as revoking his US citizenship first or charging him with treason."
Both American-born Al Qaeda terrorists killed were American citizens by birth. The Constitution forbids revocation of native-born Citizenship, period. Only naturalized Citizens who committed some sort of fraudulent misrepresentation somewhere in their immigration and/or naturalization process may be subject to revocation of their naturalized Citizenship. Charging either of them with treason would have been a moot point, as they were waging war on the United States on the battlefield-territories not under US jurisdiction.

4. "None of this was done and there was just an extra-judicial execution."
False, factually incorrect conclusion. See points 1-3 and my 1:42AM post. Killing of those traitor Al Qaeda terrorists was a lawful act of war on the battlefield, against two actively treasonous Americans.

Very nasty things may sometimes be needed for raison d'État. But one then keeps them covert when they may offend commonly accepted legal, and other, principles--instead of effectively boasting of them.

The most important point.... well stated.

The media announcing that
"renown terrorist so-and-so was killed when the vehicle he was riding in exploded, no group is taking credit for the incident"
strikes more fear than US boasting.

The US "leaking" the fact that all their explosives contain pig fat would also be effective. Wars of ideology are fundamentally psych wars; the current US administration can't seem to grasp that when dealing with the Islamo-fascists.

I wonder how "Fast and Furious" would be reasoned?
Giving guns to drug dealers (enemy) who killed US citizens.

Dave in Pa: "Killing of those traitor Al Qaeda terrorists was a lawful act of war on the battlefield, against two actively treasonous Americans."

Indeed.

We do not give a second thought to the thousands of Confederate soldiers killed under more or less the same circumstances.

Exactly Captain bob, lets not forget that those guns also killed a family member of the President of Mexico.

American government starts off by forcing gun shops to "sell" guns to known cartel operatives under the guise of following them thru the group (as if they didn't already know that), knowing that every one of those guns would be used against innocent citizens on both sides of the boarder, ( convenient for anti gunnies who want to tout the mexican drug cartels, innocent civilians deaths as a pressure tactic to further prohibit legal gun owners in the usa)

Boarder patrol agent and AGT agents killed by those same guns along with unknown number of Mexican police, civilians and of course the member of the presidential family.

With neighbours like the big zero who needs enemies?

We do not give a second thought to the thousands of Confederate soldiers killed under more or less the same circumstances.

Posted by: JJM at October 12, 2011 12:35 PM

Ya know there was a reason they were called Confederates....those poor bastards thought they were in a voluntary confederation of states with a small, perihelia central Government until they were shown differently by the end of a cannon barrel and slow starvation.

"Ya know there was a reason they were called Confederates....those poor bastards thought they were in a voluntary confederation of states with a small, perihelia central Government until they were shown differently by the end of a cannon barrel and slow starvation."

What we think about the Confederates is irrelevant to the nub of this matter. They were conducting an armed rebellion and thus it was perfectly legitimate for the US government to kill them in battle during the Civil War.

Your only WRONG as can be JJM but that is another thread or debate to be held elsewhere.