I think it is so hypocritical that conservatives are silent when Obama has been killing Al Qaeda members left and right. If Bush did it, they would be celebrating.

I honestly think it's great that we're discussing the legality of kill. However, I guess I would be worried about it more if this was happening on a larger scale.

I also think that it's difficult to make analogies from the current GWOT to previous conflicts. I would love to see what we think of all this if we revisit America's post 9-11 response (under Bush, Obama, ...) in another twenty years.

Does anyone really think the President is going to start killing people on a whim? Oh wait, that would be Clinton taking out Vince Foster, Ron Brown, etc. (kidding).

But seriously, look how many folks continue to claim that Clinton didn't do enough to take out bin Laden, blamed him for the USS Cole bombing, didn't do enough after the 90's WTC bombing. Yes, these have all been picked apart on Snopes, but people still believe them.

Perhaps Obama is being proactive. Whatever the reason, I'm not worried about the killing as it's not any kind of scale.

Anonymous wrote:If you have committed treason during a war, in a war zone, can't you technically be shot on sight without a trial or court martial? Does this only apply to servicemembers? I am not trying to be snarky, just wondering about this. It has been a long time since I took military law.

The United States used to observe what was quaintly called the "Rule of Law". Under that old-fashioned doctrine, one had to be convicted of a crime prior to being punished. Even the military has its own legal system to which its members are supposed to have recourse. Now, of course, there is no longer a need for a system of justice. The president simply decides whether to kill you or not.

Anonymous wrote:
Didn't Yemen authorities have a "dead or alive" warrant on him? Did they carry out the last attempt on his life?

I don't know what type of warrant, if any, the Yemenis had. I also don't know what you mean by the "last attempt". The "last attempt" was the successful attack and was carried out by Americans. A well-publicized attack almost a year ago was also carried out by the Americans (as revealed by Wikileaks).

The current government of Yemen is a dictatorship that has been killing peaceful protesters on a daily basis. I wouldn't hold it up as a model to be emulated. There is little difference between the situation in Yemen and that in Libya under Ghaddafi. But, since they Yemeni government is nominally pro-American, NATO warplanes are not attacking it. Just another case of US hypocrisy.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With videos and attacks linked to him, wouldn't we have more than enough evidence to convict?

I would question whether there is evidence of his being involved in attacks. But, for the sake of argument, let's agree that it would have been easy to convict him. That makes the lack of even a simple indictment even worse. What if he had been arrested in Yemen or some other country? The US wouldn't even have an indictment or arrest warrant prepared. That suggests that there was never any intention of dealing with him legally.

Now that there is a precedent that Americans can be killed on nothing more than the president's go ahead -- with both Republican and Democratic support for the precedent (we few dissenters should move to Yemen) -- is anyone concerned about what limits, if any, exist on such killing? Al-Awlaki has received "Hitler of the Week" treatment for some time now. So, understandably, everyone thinks he deserved to be killed. But, now that the precedent is set. Whose next?

Didn't Yemen authorities have a "dead or alive" warrant on him? Did they carry out the last attempt on his life?

If you have committed treason during a war, in a war zone, can't you technically be shot on sight without a trial or court martial? Does this only apply to servicemembers? I am not trying to be snarky, just wondering about this. It has been a long time since I took military law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The double standard among liberals is mind-boggling. Insert "George Bush" in the place of Obama in this scenario and the left would be all over it condemning a rogue, irresponsible president trampling on the rights of U.S. citizens to further his war-mongering agenda.

Uh, did you miss the part about how the liberal ACLU had supported the father in filing suit a year ago, and how they continue to do it? And how Jeff is condemning it? Isn't the ACLU the poster child of liberal politics?

Or check Maddow at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#44738223, around ten minutes in.

[Sorry for this double posting. I must have been over-eager to make the point. BTW, note the added benefit of user names: You get to edit your postings.]

Anonymous wrote:Uh, did you miss the part about how the liberal ACLU had supported the father in filing suit a year ago, and how they continue to do it? And how Jeff is condemning it? Isn't the ACLU the poster child of liberal politics?

Check Maddow about 10 minutes into the tape here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#44738223. She starts her discussion sounding like she supports the strike, but then launches her scrutiny of the legality.

Anonymous wrote:The double standard among liberals is mind-boggling. Insert "George Bush" in the place of Obama in this scenario and the left would be all over it condemning a rogue, irresponsible president trampling on the rights of U.S. citizens to further his war-mongering agenda.

Uh, did you miss the part about how the liberal ACLU had supported the father in filing suit a year ago, and how they continue to do it? And how Jeff is condemning it? Isn't the ACLU the poster child of liberal politics?

Anonymous wrote:With videos and attacks linked to him, wouldn't we have more than enough evidence to convict?

I would question whether there is evidence of his being involved in attacks. But, for the sake of argument, let's agree that it would have been easy to convict him. That makes the lack of even a simple indictment even worse. What if he had been arrested in Yemen or some other country? The US wouldn't even have an indictment or arrest warrant prepared. That suggests that there was never any intention of dealing with him legally.

Now that there is a precedent that Americans can be killed on nothing more than the president's go ahead -- with both Republican and Democratic support for the precedent (we few dissenters should move to Yemen) -- is anyone concerned about what limits, if any, exist on such killing? Al-Awlaki has received "Hitler of the Week" treatment for some time now. So, understandably, everyone thinks he deserved to be killed. But, now that the precedent is set. Whose next?

The double standard among liberals is mind-boggling. Insert "George Bush" in the place of Obama in this scenario and the left would be all over it condemning a rogue, irresponsible president trampling on the rights of U.S. citizens to further his war-mongering agenda.

Anonymous wrote:With videos and attacks linked to him, wouldn't we have more than enough evidence to convict?

To convict him or the 2nd guy who also was American
And if he was not in those violent videos, then how is he responsible

With videos and attacks linked to him, wouldn't we have more than enough evidence to convict?

The ACLU condemns the killing:

"The targeted killing program violates both U.S. and international law. As we've seen today, this is a program under which American citizens far from any battlefield can be executed by their own government without judicial process, and on the basis of standards and evidence that are kept secret not just from the public but from the courts. The government's authority to use lethal force against its own citizens should be limited to circumstances in which the threat to life is concrete, specific and imminent. It is a mistake to invest the President – any President – with the unreviewable power to kill any American whom he deems to present a threat to the country."

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/09/30-0

Apparently, it should also move to Yemen.

Anonymous wrote:like others have said, if you don't like it, try to change the law through your votes or feel free to move to Yemen.

I think that's a really lame statement on a message board. All of us expressing our opinions here are not at that very moment voting or moving, so why single out one person, regarding one issue, to give that comment about? All of us could move rather than criticize the government, and none of us could vote at this moment.

And BTW, I don't know why we would think that issuing a single vote would be more effective than trying to influence the opinions of others.