American Citizens no longer need a trial before execution.
 

Yes, that is right, Obama has taken the steps to become the dictator he wants to be. Do you want to be defending a dictator, or a president? 2012 will be you only chance to choose, if he is bold enough to make this secret panel when he is going for reelection, what is he going to do when he doesn't have anything to lose?

GOV‘T HAS SECRET PANEL THAT CAN PUT AMERICANS ON ’KILL LIST'

This is news? Such things have existed in every administration that ever presided over a war/conflict. They just weren't stupid enough to tell everyone about it.

So, before they were just conspiracy theories, but now that the government has admitted to it, its ok?

I agree with you, it is alarming. But you do realize the most vocal advocates of assassination are the Conservatives, right?

I'm pragmatic. I've always assumed it was happening, because sometimes, it just bloody needs to.

I don't see a problem here. The guy was a scumbag that held dual citizenship. He was one of the biggest threats to the US. He fucked around and got smoked. We should have done the same to John Lindh. If you have a problem with the Kill List then you should probably talk about what bullshit the PATRIOT act is (thank you for that one, GW). The government can do anything they want if it threatens national security.

This isn't Obama. This is the government.

And how do we know all that? Because our president said so. So the president's word is now the word of law? If he says you did something bad, it becomes fact?

I know Awlaki and Khan were terrorists - there is evidence against the both of them. Just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean it's not true.

Really?

Reuters cited the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, who said the process involves “going through the National Security Council, then it eventually goes to the president, but the National Security Council does the investigation, they have lawyers, they review, they look at the situation, you have input from the military, and also, we make sure that we follow international law.”

It's not just Conservatives. I'm neither Conservative or Liberal and I agree with what they did to Awlaki and Khan. They had plenty of evidence. Trust me - we can't just go shooting whoever we want w/o a legal review and other processes.

And yet it was not presented in a court of law, under due process. The constitution gives VERY little leeway towards denial of habeus corpus. In these situations the threats are not imminent nor immediate. The fact that they said something once or twice that might compel others to perform terrorist acts is not under this category.

It really does need to be stated that the majority of our Constitution only applies to our citizens...as it was intended. You're better off quoting a UN Mandate.

Have you read the Constution? It is the right of "persons" not "citizens" involved here. The Constitution is very good at distinguishing the two terms. The rights of persons is not limited to US Citizens in the least.

For referencial purposes, great breakdown of Constutional "rights" listed here:
http://www.constitution.org/powright.htm

The concern here is with the apparent lack of due process prior to putting Awlaki (or however it's spelled) on the hit list. But I submit to you: Is the only appropriate due process an adversarial trial? Or can due process be satisfied in other ways when it's virtually impossible to bring someone to justice?

Here's the important thing about the Constitution - it details what the government is allowed and not allowed to do. It doesn't apply to citizens or Americans or people. The government can't restrict the rights listed in the Bill of Rights. The Constitution is our protection from the government - but it gets so abused and misinterpreted that it's ridiculous. But you're right - it doesn't only apply to citizens. That's why people come here.

Really? Not an imminent threat? Do you know anything about the guy? In just the last three years, he is associated with one terrorist attack (Hasan, Ft Hood) and three attempted attacks (the Times Square attempt, the Christmas Day "underwear bomber" and the 2007 plot to attack soldiers at Ft Dix). That's just the last three years. He was the propaganda tool for them.

There is plenty of evidence against the guy but good luck getting him extradited from Yemen. But it wasn't because he "said some mean things about the US" - this guy was a terrorist.

Immediate and imminent. From an authorization for deadly force perspective he displayed no clear signs of opportunity or capability at that moment, although maybe a certain degree of intent. That seems like a one-legged triangle to me. There was no clear reason why he could not have been apprehended, brought to public trial, at the consent and support of peaceful Muslims in the region, and given due process under habeous corpus. It would have made so much more significant a statement if we'd displayed solidarity and justice in the forms by which we designed ourselves to be governed, but instead we just took the "easy" way and just dropped bombs on a building.

Was it impossible? Seems to me like nobody even tried to explore alternatives.

Who was the last government conservative that had an american citizen assassinated?

Obama........