Why was Anwar al-Awlaki executed by drone, without due process?

[MadHound]

78. Actually three US citizens have been killed by US drone strikes, at least that we know about.

Samir Khan was the other US citizen killed by drones, more "collateral damage."

As far as al-Awlaki goes, again I have to ask, how many terrorist strikes did he carry out? How many Americans did he kill?

His son was simply a sixteen year old, looking to find his father. Nothing sinister about that. Yet for that "crime" of doing what any concerned son would do, he was killed by a drone at a roadside cafe, a drone that was targeted for somebody else, somebody who wasn't even at the cafe.

As far as drone use on American soil goes, that's kind of still up in the air. Holder's first statement on that is as follows, "It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States." His letter to Rand Paul states, "It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: "Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?" The answer to that question is no."

Now that leaves some serious wriggle room. What, exactly, is considered combat? You and others on this board are perfectly willing to condemn al-Awlaki as a combatant, even though all he has done for certain is speak out against the US. What if the this or future administrations take a similar position? Throw into the mix the power that Bush gave to the executive branch that allows the president to declare basically anybody he wants to, US citizen or otherwise, an enemy combatant. Things get real dicey then. And remember, this is not just a power that only Obama will have, but future Republican presidents as well. Do you trust them with such power? I certainly don't.

And frankly we don't know whether or not the majority of victims were "people bend on killing Americans." As you say, that information is classified. However our ally in the region, Pakistan, has clearly stated that the vast majority of drone victims were indeed civilians. In fact a study carried out jointly by the New York University and Stanford University law schools found that onlytwo percent of the victims of drone strikes were high level targets. Worse, it has been found that US drones have come back for repeat strikes a half hour later, killing medical personnel who had shown up to help the previous victims. They've targeted weddings, and the funerals of other drone victims.

The worst part about all of this is that with every single civilian killed by a drone, we are making more and more enemies, enemies who now want to come visit horror and terror on us. Thus, the likelihood of another 911 event goes up with every single drone strike. Is that what you want?

As far as the rest of your post goes, it is weak, weak and lame. You are basically trying to damn people by association, a sure sign that your position is weak and you know it. I and many other Democrats and liberals blasted Bush for his drone policy, and we are simply being consistent. One's opposition to illegal, immoral policy shouldn't change with the letter behind the President's name.